Inmate: Walanzo D. Robinson
ODOC# 189399
Birthdate: 04/12/1971
Race: Black
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 09 in
Weight: 167 pounds
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Location: Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Mcalester

Oklahoma Attorney General News Release

News Release - W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General - 02/05/03

Execution Date Set for Jackson, Robinson

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals today set execution dates for death row inmates Larry Kenneth Jackson and Walanzo Deon Robinson. Attorney General Drew Edmondson requested the dates Jan. 15 after the United States Supreme Court denied the inmates' final appeals.

Jackson, 40, is scheduled to be executed Feb. 18 for the Sept. 6, 1994, murder of his girlfriend Wendy Cade. Cade, 29, picked Jackson up at the Jim Thorpe Building in Oklahoma City where Jackson was on a prison work crew. The pair left together in Cade's jeep and checked into an Oklahoma City motel. A confrontation ensued in the bathroom, and Jackson later confessed to killing Cade with a box knife, cutting her throat about 30 times and severing her jugular vein.

Robinson, 31, is scheduled to be executed March 18 for the May 19, 1989, murder of 26-year old Dennis Hill in Oklahoma City. According to court records, Robinson and Hill and previously been involved in a confrontation. A witness reported Hill was shot as he attempted to run across 20th Street. Robinson then reportedly walked to where Hill fell and shot him two more times with a .38-caliber revolver.

Currently, four Oklahoma death row inmates are scheduled for execution. Bobby Joe Fields, Oklahoma County, Feb. 13; John Michael Hooker, Oklahoma County, March 25; David Jay Brown, Grady County, March 27, and Scott Allen Hain, Creek County, April 3. An execution date has been requested for Oklahoma County inmate Don Wilson Hawkins, Jr.

ProDeathPenalty.Com

Walanzo Robinson is scheduled for execution March 18 for the murder of Dennis Hill in an apparent argument over drug turf in northeast Oklahoma City. Robinson came to Oklahoma City from Los Angeles. Police officers in Los Angeles testified at his trial that he was a member of the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods, a violent street gang active in the crack cocaine trade. Robinson had been staying with friends in Oklahoma City. On May 19, 1989, he and Hill argued, with Robinson accusing Hill of stealing drug customers, court transcripts say. Prosecutors said that Hill was shot in the back by Robinson. Then, Robinson followed the wounded Hill and fired two more bullets into him as he lay on the ground. Several witnesses testified seeing Robinson shoot Hill twice as Hill walked away. They testified that Robinson walked up to Hill, who was still alive, and shot him two more times. Robinson then fled the state. Los Angeles police arrested Robinson four months after the slaying.

The arresting officer characterized Robinson as a dangerous man. "I have been in contact with hundreds of gang members in my career," former Los Angeles police officer Daniel Mathieu stated in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. "Some are considered 'hardcore' while I have heard the term 'wanna-bes' or less hard core with others. Robinson was a hardcore member of the Van-Ness Gangsters. This gang was very active in murders, drive-by shootings and drug sales. They were known for their violence." Mathieu said he had been threatened by gang members after Robinson's arrest.

The murder occurred in May 1989. Robinson was arrested in California on September 7, 1989. Four witnesses, all with prior criminal records, identified Robinson as the man who shot Hill. Although they did not identify him by his real name, but rather "Bandit," a street nickname they knew him by. Robinson also admitted to police that during his violent life, he had been the victim of five drive-by shootings and was a gang member. Robinson may have been in Oklahoma at the time to set up a drug dealing operation. Robinson's attorneys claim that prosecutors convicted him with little hard evidence. They also claim that the jury was tainted by racist leanings of some jurors. His attorneys said that one juror, a black woman, had been pressured to vote for a death sentence when she initially wanted to sentence Robinson to life in prison. The attorney general's offices disputes these claims. One of the jurors, Joel Johnson, also said there were no racist leanings by the jury. The Pardon and Parole Board voted against clemency for Robinson. He has denied involvement in Hill's death.

UPDATE: Walanzo Deon Robinson was executed Tuesday for the 1989 killing of a rival Oklahoma City drug dealer who was shot three times in the street. Robinson, 31, died at 6:10 p.m. after receiving a lethal dose of drugs at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He had been convicted of 1st-degree murder for killing Dennis Hill May 19, 1989. "It's been a long 13 years of waiting, pain and stress for me," Anthony Lee, Hill's brother, said in a statement. "And now the time has come when my mind can be free, but Dennis can still be in my heart."

The execution was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Robinson's last-ditch appeal Tuesday without comment. His previous appeals had also all been denied. Robinson had alleged in Monday's appeal that racial bias led the jury to give him the death sentence and that the evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and filled with discrepancy. "Walanzo Robinson was properly convicted and sentenced," Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in a statement. "His appeals have been exhausted and the Pardon and Parole Board has rightfully denied clemency. It is time the execution is carried out." Robinson, who was 18 at the time, and Hill were arguing over who could sell cocaine on a northeast Oklahoma City street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun, witnesses said. Robinson shot Hill, 26, in the back as he tried to run away, then shot him twice more as he lay in the street asking someone to call an ambulance, according to witnesses. "It is absolutely cold-blooded," said Gary Ackley, who prosecuted Robinson for the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office. "He swept away the life of Mr. Hill the way you would swipe away a fly that's bothering you. People with that little regard for human life don't deserve to live." Robinson's appeal said a lone black juror switched her vote in favor of death only after some white jurors intimidated her and referred to her with racial slurs, like "Little Miss Slave Trader." Robinson's attorneys used the same argument in unsuccesfully asking for clemency. The juror, Marcia Davidson, did not testify during the clemency hearing, leaving Robinson to rely on 2nd-hand accounts of her allegations. Edmondson responded to Robinson's court appeal Tuesday, citing other jurors' testimony that they heard no such abuse during the deliberations, a spokeswoman said. Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board members denied clemency March 12, with three voting against it, one abstaining and the other recusing herself. It was the newly appointed board's 1st clemency case. Helen Lee-Hawkins, Hill's sister, recalled Hill as a fishing enthusiast, who enjoyed reading the newspaper and detailing cars. Hill was also close to her son, she said. "Walanzo showed no emotions, no sympathy or a care in the world for his behavior," Lee-Hawkins wrote in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Walanzo Robinson (OK) - March 18, 2003 - 6:00 CST, 7:00 EST

The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute Walanzo Robinson March 18 for the 1989 murder of Dennis Hill in Oklahoma City. Robinson, a black man, allegedly shot Hill after the two – both drug dealers – engaged in an argument over money and territory. At trial, his jury consisted of 11 white people; when the sole black juror decided Robinson deserved a life sentence, she received intimidation and harassment from her fellow jurors. They told her she was “just one nigger helping out another” and eventually persuaded her to vote for the death penalty.

After reviewing the circumstances concerning this racist coercion, a federal district judge wrote that the allegations, “if proven true, are egregious and intolerable.” However, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2002 that the testimony of this holdout juror could not be used to overturn the sentence. Now, after a 14-year process clearly tainted by discrimination and bigotry, Robinson is just a few weeks away from his scheduled execution.

Since his initial arrest in 1989, he has professed his innocence, claiming that although he was in the vicinity when the Hill murder occurred, he did not commit it. Prosecutors presented no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and earned a conviction based only on eyewitness accounts, which are historically unreliable.

The governor’s power of executive clemency marks the final safeguard against the overt racial discrimination that clearly led to this pending execution. In Oklahoma, the governor can commute a death sentence if the Pardon and Parole Board gives him a favorable recommendation. Sadly, Gov. Brad Henry has shown little respect for the Board’s understanding of the system since he entered office earlier this year. In February, he ignored a clemency recommendation in the case of Bobby Joe Fields – a man clearly railroaded by the justice system. Fields unknowingly pled guilty for a death sentence and found himself on death row without a trial. Gov. Henry evidently paid no attention to the Board’s recommendation, and the state executed Fields on Feb. 13.

Robinson’s hearing before the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board starts at 10 am on March 12, and shortly thereafter, the Board will pass along its recommendation to Gov. Henry. If the Board gives him the opportunity, Gov. Henry should commute this sentence in the interest of fairness and racial justice. Please write the state of Oklahoma and request clemency for Walanzo Robinson.

Daily Oklahoman

"Robinson Executed for 1989 Fatal Shooting of Rival Drug Dealer." (March 18, 2003)

McALESTER (AP) - Walanzo Deon Robinson was executed Tuesday for the 1989 killing of a rival Oklahoma City drug dealer who was shot three times in the street. Robinson, 31, died at 6:10 p.m. after receiving a lethal dose of drugs at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He had been convicted of first-degree murder for killing Dennis Hill May 19, 1989.

"It's been a long 13 years of waiting, pain and stress for me," Anthony Lee, Hill's brother, said in a statement. "And now the time has come when my mind can be free, but Dennis can still be in my heart." Robinson is the third inmate put to death this year in Oklahoma and the 141st in the state's history. Execution dates are also set for four other inmates. The execution was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Robinson's last-ditch appeal Tuesday without comment. His previous appeals had also all been denied.

Robinson had alleged in Monday's appeal that racial bias led the jury to give him the death sentence and that the evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and filled with discrepancy. "Walanzo Robinson was properly convicted and sentenced," Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in a statement. "His appeals have been exhausted and the Pardon and Parole Board has rightfully denied clemency. It is time the execution is carried out."

Robinson, who was 18 at the time, and Hill were arguing over who could sell cocaine on a northeast Oklahoma City street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun, witnesses said. Robinson shot Hill, 26, in the back as he tried to run away, then shot him twice more as he lay in the street asking someone to call an ambulance, according to witnesses. "It is absolutely cold-blooded," said Gary Ackley, who prosecuted Robinson for the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office. "He swept away the life of Mr. Hill the way you would swipe away a fly that's bothering you. People with that little regard for human life don't deserve to live."

Robinson's appeal said a lone black juror switched her vote in favor of death only after some white jurors intimidated her and referred to her with racial slurs, like "Little Miss Slave Trader." Robinson's attorneys used the same argument in unsuccesfully asking for clemency. The juror, Marcia Davidson, did not testify during the clemency hearing, leaving Robinson to rely on second-hand accounts of her allegations. Edmondson responded to Robinson's court appeal Tuesday, citing other jurors' testimony that they heard no such abuse during the deliberations, a spokeswoman said.

Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board members denied clemency March 12, with three voting against it, one abstaining and the other recusing herself. It was the newly appointed board's first clemency case. Helen Lee-Hawkins, Hill's sister, recalled Hill as a fishing enthusiast, who enjoyed reading the newspaper and detailing cars. Hill was also close to her son, she said. "Walanzo showed no emotions, no sympathy or a care in the world for his behavior," Lee-Hawkins wrote in a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.

Meanwhile, Robinson ate a last meal Tuesday of cucumber salad, beef sausage pizza, a chocolate fudge sundae with nuts and a small jar of dill pickle halves. Robinson is the third Oklahoma inmate to be put to death this year. Bobby Joe Fields, 39, was executed Feb. 13 for the 1993 slaying of an elderly Oklahoma City woman during a burglary. Daniel Juan Revilla, 34, of Altus, was executed Jan. 16 for the 1986 death of his girlfriend's baby.

The Death House.Com

"Former Gang Member Executed in Oklahoma for Drug Turf Murder."

McALESTER, Okla. - A former member of a violent Los Angeles street gang who was convicted of kiling a rival drug dealer in Oklahoma City was executed by lethal injection Tuesday night at the state penitentiary. Walanzo Deon Robinson, 31, was put to death for the 1989 murder of Dennis Hill. Prosecutors said that Robinson was angry that Hill, 26, was taking away his drug customers from a street corner and pumped at least three bullets into him. Los Angeles police gang experts had identified Robinson as a member of the Van-Ness Gangster Bloods, a crack dealing gang responsible for drive-by shootings and murders. Robinson, who professed to be a Muslim minister and referred to himself as Walanzo Shabaka, became the third convicted killer executed in Oklahoma in 2003. Robinson was just 18-years-old at the time of the murder. He had claimed he was innocent.

Robinson: Act Against Islam Jerry Massie, public relations manager for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, said that although Robinson's last statement was inaudible to witnesses, he was told that the condemned man blamed Oklahoma for "killing an innocent man." Robinson said his execution was an act against the Islam nation, Massie said. The lethal chemicals began flowing at 6:07 p.m. and Robinson was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m., Massie said.

Shot Victim In Back

Robinson was the second condemned murderer to be executed on Tuesday. Earlier, the federal government executed Louis Jones at a federal prison in Indiana. Jones, a retired Army Ranger, had kidnapped, raped and murdered a young female soldier in Texas.Prosecutors said that Hill was shot in the back by Robinson. Then, Robinson followed the wounded crack dealer and fired two more bullets into him as he lay on the ground. Robinson then fled the state.He was arrested in California on September 7, 1989.Identified By Street NameFour witnesses, all with prior criminal records, identified Robinson as the man who shot Hill. However, the witnesses did not identify Robinson by his real name, but his street nickname of "Bandit."One of the central issues appealed was over a lone black juror who had claimed that she switched her vote to sentence Robinson to death after white jurors used racial slurs against him.

Kansas City Star

"Oklahoma Executes Man for 1989 Murder," by Clayton Bellamy. (AP March 18, 2003)

McALESTER, Okla. - A man convicted of first-degree murder for gunning down a rival drug dealer in the street was executed Tuesday by injection. Walanzo Deon Robinson, 31, was put to death at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary after the U.S. Supreme Court denied his final appeal. Robinson's two-minute final statement was inaudible through the prison sound system, but corrections officials said he maintained his innocence to the end. Robinson was convicted for the shooting death of Dennis Hill in May 1989.

Witnesses said Robinson, who was 18 at the time, and Hill were arguing over who could sell cocaine on an Oklahoma City street corner when Robinson pulled out a handgun. As Hill tried to run away, Robinson shot him in the back, then shot him twice more as he lay in the street pleading for an ambulance. Robinson had alleged in his appeals that racial bias led the jury to give him the death sentence and that the evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and filled with discrepancy.

Hill's brothers, Anthony and Cordell Lee, were present at the execution. "It's been a long 13 years of waiting, pain and stress for me," Anthony Lee said in a statement. "And now the time has come when my mind can be free, but Dennis can still be in my heart."

Robinson is the third inmate executed in Oklahoma this year; four others are scheduled.

Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Amnesty International Urgent Action Appeal - Walanzo Robinson - March 18, 2003

Walanzo Robinson (m), black, aged 32, is scheduled to be executed in Oklahoma on 18 March. He was sentenced to death in June 1990 for the murder of Dennis Eugene Hill, black, in May 1989. Walanzo Robinson had reached his 18th birthday a month before the murder.

Dennis Hill and Walanzo Robinson were both dealing drugs in Oklahoma City. Dennis Hill was shot in the early hours of 19 May 1989 after he and Walanzo Robinson allegedly had an argument. Walanzo Robinson, who maintains that he was in the area of the killing but that he did not shoot Dennis Hill, was convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony, a notoriously unreliable form of evidence. Indeed, witnesses had given differing accounts of the crime. There was no physical evidence linking Walanzo Robinson to the shooting. His trial lasted for two days.

The jury consisted of 11 whites and one African American. Post-conviction investigations by the defence revealed that the sole black juror had not wanted to vote for the death penalty. The juror told an investigator that she had been subjected to mental and physical intimidation by fellow jurors, who "yelled and screamed" at her, and "slammed down papers and their hands or fists on the table" because she was the only person to fail to vote for death. She said that fellow jurors had said that she was just "one nigger helping out another" and that the "jury was not leaving the room without a death sentence". After eight hours of such pressure, she said that she relented and voted for death because she was "tired of the hostility and cruelty of the other jurors". Another defence investigator signed an affidavit that he had spoken to the jury foreman. The latter allegedly confirmed to the investigator that the African American woman had been the only juror not wanting to vote for death, and that he, the foreman, had been among those haranguing her until she changed her mind.

In general, the rules of evidence do not allow US courts to consider juror allegations in post-conviction proceedings in order to preserve the state's interest in protecting the jury deliberation process. The appeal courts have chosen not to make an exception in this case. In 1999, a federal district judge acknowledged that the allegations made by the juror, "if proven true, are egregious and intolerable". Citing a 1915 US Supreme Court precedent on this issue, the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wrote that choosing not to review the juror affidavit in the Walanzo Robinson case "represents a choice of the 'lesser of two evils' - not redressing a private litigant's injury in favour of upholding the public policy promoting private and unassailable juror deliberations". However, such evidentiary restrictions do not apply to executive clemency, a power which exists in part to compensate for the inability or unwillingness of the judiciary to take certain evidence into account. In March 1999, for example, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas commuted the death sentence of Bobby Ray Fretwell. The governor said that he had been swayed by an appeal from one of the trial jurors for the execution to be stopped. The juror wrote that he had been the only one of the 12 initially to vote for life, but had changed his vote to death because he felt intimidated and did not want to be shunned by his community. There will be a clemency hearing for Walanzo Robinson before the state Pardon and Parole Board on 12 March 2003. The Governor cannot commute a death sentence unless the Board make a recommendation for him to do so. He can reject such a recommendation. He also has the power to issue a temporary reprieve, which he could use to ask the Board to reconsider a vote against clemency.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases. Since executions resumed in the USA in 1977, there have been 830 executions nationwide, of which 56 have been carried out in Oklahoma. In 2001, Amnesty International published a major report on its range of concerns relating to Oklahoma's death penalty which the organization provided to the state's legislature and executive authorities (see Old Habits Die Hard: The death penalty in Oklahoma, AMR 51/055/2001, April 2001).

In its 2001 report on the USA, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged the authorities "to ensure, possibly by imposing a moratorium, that no death penalty is imposed as a result of racial bias on the part of prosecutors, judges, juries and lawyers..." Walanzo Robinson's case is not the first time that racist coercion of a black juror by white jurors has been alleged in the USA. For example, William Hance, black, was executed in Georgia in 1994. The only African American juror on his jury later came forward to say that she had not voted for the death penalty, but that the rest of the jury had decided to tell the judge that they had reached a unanimous verdict for execution. The black juror said that she had been too intimidated by the misconduct and racism in the jury room to object. African American Louis Truesdale was executed in South Carolina in 1998. The only black juror later came forward to say that she had wanted to vote for life imprisonment, but had been intimidated by the racism prevailing in the jury room into changing her vote to death.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible:

- expressing sympathy for the family and friends of Dennis Eugene Hill, and explaining that you are not seeking to excuse the manner of his death or the suffering it will have caused;

- noting that the conviction of Walanzo Robinson was based solely on eyewitness testimony, a notoriously unreliable form of evidence; - expressing deep concern at the allegations made by the sole African American juror at his trial that she only changed her vote to death under mental and physical intimidation from her fellow jurors; - noting that the federal district court said that, if true, what the juror alleged in this case would be "egregious and intolerable"; - noting that the rules of evidence have not allowed the appeal courts to review this juror evidence, adding that executive clemency authorities are not restricted by such rules, and that the power of executive clemency exists in part to compensate for the inability of the judiciary to take certain factors into account (you may note the 1999 Fretwell case in Arkansas); - calling for clemency for Walanzo Robinson, in the interests of ending racism and promoting justice and the reputation of the State of Oklahoma and the USA as a whole; - in appeals to the Governor, you should urge that, in the absence of a clemency recommendation from the Pardon and Parole Board, he use his power of reprieve to stop this execution.

APPEALS TO: Appeals to the Board should arrive by 11 March (appeals to the Governor can be sent up to 18 March). Please quote Walanzo Robinson's inmate number: #189399 (on the outside of envelope if sending a letter).

Help Walanzo

Dear Governor Brad Henry:

We, Friends and Supporters of Minister Shabaka (FASOMS), humbly petition you as Governor of the Great State of Oklahoma to investigate the trial, conviction and appeals of Minister Walanzo Shabaka (Robinson), whom we are convinced has become a victim of a grave miscarriage of justice.

The matter of Minister Shabaka raises profound concern for the level of legal representation administered him at Trial which shamefully set stage for his unfair conviction to (Malice Aforethought) MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, tried before the Honorable Judge Bana B. Blasdel of Oklahoma County District Court {Case No. 89-4791}, in which the conviction and sentencing of Death were entered on the 7th June 1990 and 15th June 1990, respectively.

Aside from the sub-par legal counsel provided to Minister Shabaka at Trial, there are a number of issues which are also quite disturbing, and these are:

The only relative evidence which links Minister Shabaka to the crime of shooting Mr Dennis Eugene Hill, by way of four gun shot wounds to the torso, is his former street name, which there is evidence of another Afro-American male, who likewise used the moniker “Bandit” and had relation to the case of which Minister Shabaka has been wrongfully convicted.

There is no physical or forensic evidence which links Minister Shabaka to the homicide of Mr Hill. Furthermore, the initial suspect description was more consistent with “Bandit” than that of Minister Shabaka.

Minister Shabaka was convicted on highly suspect, unreliable and conflicting testimony of persons claiming to have had knowledge of the immediate events of May 19, 1989 (when the homicide of Mr Hill occurred), all of which raise the element of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, e.g. the witnesses opposed to the factuality of Minister Shabaka’s innocence have testified that the man who committed the actual murder wore Khaki pants, or blue jeans, or black shorts.

Governor Henry, this conflicting testimony concerning the clothes the shooter wore at the time of shooting Mr Hill strongly indicates that the witnesses were not observing the same person, or the person whom they identified as the defendant (Minister Shabaka) on the crowded street in the middle of the night at the time of the murder. This completely unreliable, highly conflicting testimony was the only evidence that Mr Robinson (Minister Shabaka) is involved in this crime at all. The murder weapon was never located. The Investigating Officers never recovered any spent shells or projectiles (Tr. p 377). Minister Shabaka never confessed. Clearly, had the jury been provided with information that there was another young Afro-American male from Los Angeles in the area, who went by the name “Bandit”, the seemingly conflicting, unreliable presented by the State would have made sense. There is no possible way for Minister Shabaka to have been the person in each clothing description given to Oklahoma City Police Technical Investigators Mike Jones and Rhett Brotherton. What makes this matter all the more disturbing is the Prosecutor Mr Robert H Macy claimed to the jury that such conflicting testimony of clothing description was insignificant, and that what was material was that they identified Minister Shabaka as the shooter.

This is not a forum for retrying the case and the injustices Minister Shabaka suffered are all too many for them to be accommodated here, however we feel it highly significant that there was conflicting testimony, for it raises questions as to whether the “witnesses” were actually witnesses at all or did they in fact see another person? Some witnesses gave testimony of the shooter going in one direction, while others said that he went in the other direction, indicative of two persons (Tr. p 330, 346, 499). The question in light of fairness so that justice may prevail is which of these witnesses gave truthful testimony? The Courts have failed to resolve this issue as they feel it is insignificant. We would like to think that with your analytical eye and concern for justice, you will consider this point of concern which casts doubt on Minister Shabaka being the man identified in the various clothing descriptions.

We find it well within reason to question the legitimacy of Minister Shabaka’s conviction, particularly in light of the fact that State Witness Devera Johnson claimed to have seen Minister Shabaka once in her entire life for a period of no more than 60 seconds prior to Mr Hill’s death. She admitted to the Court that on the night of Mr Hill’s death the lighting conditions were poor, that it was very dark. She told the Court she didn’t drink beer the night of the murder, however after being further pressed, she confessed she had in fact drunk beer in the early hours of the morning leading to the murder. And under strained conditions she somehow sees the shooter and overhears loud voices. Ms Johnson claimed to be an eyewitness and had spent the morning and day with Mr Hill. We find this to be highly unlikely in light of the uncontested testimony of the Prosecutions witness Mr Rohnie Synder, who personally knew “Bandit” and was the best friend of Mr Hill for over ten (10) years, and his partner in the drug business. Mr Synder clearly established for the Court record that he was in fact in front of Hill’s front yard with Hill at 9.30 a.m. on May 18 1989 (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p141) and met with “Bandit” at that time, remaining with him until approximately 1.30 or 2.00 p.m. (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p 159). And he was with “Bandit” when he purchased a .357 wood-handled Magnum (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p 155-6) from a Mr William Dial. More importantly, Mr Synder testified that Minister Shabaka (Robinson) was NOT the person “Bandit” who he and Mr Hill had interactions with on May 18 and May 19 1989. At the Preliminary Trial Hearing Mr Synder testified that the defendant Walanzo Robinson was not “Bandit” (Tr. Prlm. Hr. p 142-3). Mr Synder stated this fact three times. The transcript of this part of the Preliminary Trial Hearing records the following:

Mr Ackley (Deputy District Attorney): “Okay, is Bandit in this room today?”

Mr Synder: “No, Sir.”

Mr Ackley: “Okay, specifically, this man in the red jump suit with a yellow pencil in his ……. You ever seen that man before (indicating)?”

Mr Synder: “Sir, no, Sir.”

Mr Ackley: “Never seen him before in your life, is that right?”

Mr Chris Box (Attorney for Minister Shabaka): “Objection, asked and answer.”

The Court: “Overruled.”

Mr Ackley: “Never seen this man before in your life, Sir?”

Mr Synder: “I may have seen him before, Sir.”

Mr Ackley: “But that is not the man that introduced himself to you as Bandit on May 18?”

Mr Synder: “No, Sir.”

This was highly important testimony and viable evidence which establishes that there was no possible way for Ms Devera Johnson to have been with Mr Hill on the morning and day of May 18; and it makes a distinction between “Bandit” and Minister Shabaka by way of the fact that Mr Synder personally knew “Bandit”. The question for any fair minded person, (particularly in such a serious matter as this of a man facing the prospect of being executed based upon witness testimony) arises which of the two State subpoenaed witnesses on this specific issue of May 18 - May 19 is telling the truth? It is apparent Mr Synder’s testimony weakened the Prosecution’s case, and so he was dropped from their witness list and was not summoned to Trial on behalf of the State. Ms Johnson’s claims were favored even though her accounts of what happened were vague to say the least, giving no name as to the alleged person who was supposed to have been with her in the car with Mr Hill, nor the name of persons they each visited. Mr Synder gave a detailed account of activity on which he, Mr Hill and “Bandit” were engaged; and the established time-line for their activities could not provide an opportunity for Mr Hill to have been with Ms Johnson. To say otherwise is to proclaim an impossibility. Because of the problem of conflicting testimony from two State witnesses, it is understandable why the Prosecution dropped Mr Synder as a State witness. However when justice is at stake the conflicting testimonies must be resolved; either one is correct, or both are lying. There is no middle ground.

Minister Shabaka’s legal counsel did nothing to remedy this matter. In fact he failed to bring this conflicting testimony to the attention of the jury. Plainly this was vital evidence. The failure to raise such fundamentally important evidence falls below any reasonable standard of competency. There was no physical evidence linking Minister Shabaka to the crime. There was no confession. The only evidence linking Minister Shabaka to the crime was the testimony of the witnesses. Eliciting testimony that Minister Shabaka (Robinson) was not the individual some witnesses named as the shooter would have cast doubt on the eye witness identification. This raises, at the very least, the probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different if this evidence had been used at Trial. Mr Box, the Defendant’s Attorney, fell pray to a fundamental misunderstanding of the vital importance of Mr Synder’s testimony. Or worse, he deliberately undermined the significance of this testimony which strengthens the fact that Minister Shabaka is innocent! We believe that the latter is correct, particularly when considering that there could have been filed a motion to retry the case stemming from Prosecutorial misconduct or violation of a Motion in Limine to prohibit the State from eliciting testimony, during first Stage, in relation to Mr Robinson’s gang affiliation (Tr. p 14-16). The State agreed not to raise the issue during first Stage, and on the basis of the parties’ agreement, the Court sustained the motion (Tr. p 16). None the less, the State elicited such testimony on two occasions, and Mr Box failed to object. The Hon Judge Blasdel even had concern enough to suggest that Mr Box motion the Court for a Mistrial. At one point the Court on its own Motion called the parties to the bench (Tr. p 479) regarding an improper statement of witness Mr Carolina, who should have been admonished. Mr Box had an opportunity to Motion for Mistrial particularly when considering that the Court brought the matter to the attention of the parties. Mr Box requested that the State move on and informed the Court he did not intend to make a Motion for Mistrial as he didn’t “think it’s appropriate” (Tr. p480).

This critical matter was not brought to the attention of Minister Shabaka to see if he would favor or not a Motion for Mistrial. At another crucial phase of Trial, Mr Box could have objected to highly prejudicial testimony of a Los Angeles Police Officer Mr Dan Matthieu in which there was sufficient cause to Motion the Court for Mistrial. Subsequently there was an off the record discussion, without Minister Shabaka, in which Mr Box explained to Judge Blasdel one of the reasons was "I “d not want to run the risk of possibly having to retry this case in the future, so I want to make it perfectly clear for the record why an objection wasn’t logged in the matter” (Tr. 549). This decision not to object or make a Motion for Mistrial was not a strategic decision, but rather a decision based on self-interest. A shame without apology, he failed to advocate zealously for Minister Shabaka because he wanted to avoid the time and effort that might be involved in possibly re-trying the case. It makes one wonder how much time and effort was devoted to preparing a defense for Minister Shabaka in light of the betrayal to be his advocate against an already very weak case? Mr Box did more so to help the Prosecution than his own client. Perhaps he maintained deep-rooted affection for Mr Macy (the District Attorney) as he (Mr Box) was once the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. And it was noted at the conclusion of the Trial, Mr Macy warmly patted Mr Box on the shoulder, as if to say “congratulations, job well done for us.”

This, we suspect, is why he never motioned for a Mistrial, even at the instance when a witness remark inflamed the jury. Mr Box told the Court “Maybe if Counsel just move on to another question…. I’m not going to make any Motion for a Mistrial…” (Tr. p480).

We take note that the person in Oklahoma City prior to Minister Shabaka’s having visited Oklahoma who referred to himself as “Bandit” was actually called Keith. This is highly significant in relation to the early morning hours of May 19, for it was a person named Keith, probably in haste or panic, using his real name instead of the alias “Bandit”, placed a phone call to be picked up from the crime scene area (Prlm Tr. Hr. of Mikeal Airhartt, page 78, testimony of Brenda Finley -

Q: “How did you find out that there was a problem that morning?”

A: I received a phone call.”

Q: "And who called?”

A: “A guy named Keith or Keithy or something like that called me.”

And furthermore it is this Keith whose description on the police report better described him than the 18 year old Minister Shabaka who in no way looked in his early twenties.

Governor Henry, we would also like you to take note that initially there was nothing of note to substantiate even a resemblance of guilt to Minister Shabaka. The witnesses’ testimony primarily pointed toward suspicion at best, while others cleared him. Case in point, at Trial the Prosecutor informed the jury that Minister Shabaka confessed to killing Mr Hill to two women i.e. Opothleyahola Hudson and Johnida Hudson. But the facts are established that at no time in the original interview by Officers Mike Jones and Rhett Brotherton had either women claimed Minister Shabaka to have expressed anything remotely close to shooting or having killed Mr Hill (Tr. p446-7). Nor to Detectives King or Mitchell a month or two later in the Oklahoma City Jail (Tr. p535-6, p544-5). In fact Johnida Hudson said that Minister Shabaka entered their home to get his coat and guns from the sofa, and said he’d be back. No mention was ever made of knowledge as to the shooting that had taken place while he was at the doorstep knocking on the door of the Hudson’s home.

However, after being visited by the Prosecution while being in jail, their respective testimony changed to one of conflict with what was established in the police report and at Preliminary Hearing, from that of Minister Shabaka making non- incriminating statements to that of a full indictment to confession (Tr. 452). It is highly disturbing to know that perjury was allowed to instigate guilt of an innocent man.

Governor Henry, we recognise that Minister Shabaka was influenced by a sub-culture that prohibited his co-operation with law enforcement, as pointed out vividly in the web-page “The Condemned, Innocent”. But such silence should not be held against him in light of the mismanagement of Trial issues by Mr Chris Box, nor the fully established lies of certain witnesses, each aiding in this unjust conviction. In view of this crime against Minister Shabaka, we cannot be overtly critical that the Courts have reasonably become target for speculation as to if it is only one-sided in its examination of Appeals, that side being pro-Prosecution. Such would be bias from the inception of endeavoring to litigate legitimate issues for fair review toward finality based upon relevant facts to all claims raised.

No doubt the case of Minister Shabaka raises concern toward the level of fairness provided him by the Oklahoma Courts as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Even these places of Law are prone to making incorrect decisions, particularly when they have permitted procedural bar at relevant issues needed to establish the facts of a particular issue; and many a time Appeals themselves are grossly mismanaged by Appellant Counsel. It is not our intention to challenge the Death Penalty in this instance, but rather to bring attention to critical areas that show that the ultimate legalized punishment should not be administered in the case of Minister Shabaka, having so many unresolved issues as to credibility of evidence and witnesses.

We appeal to your sense of judgement, could you honestly not conclude that there is substantial doubt as to the guilt of Minister Shabaka upon review of the Court documentations of Preliminary Hearing in conjunction to the testimony of Mr Synder and the apparent changes in testimony of the Hudson sisters; and there being motive for persons such as Brenda Finley to testify against Minister Shabaka favorably for the Prosecution; and coupled by lack of physical evidence, no confession and a doctored up case theory, it is flat out wrong to permit an Execution in light of the aforementioned, which are not limited to that.

Minister Shabaka is at the last stage of his Appeal which we have no faith the United States Supreme Court will reasonably review the issue to be addressed before them. As was the case at the 10th Circuit in their reviewing of his claims for nine (9) months, only to reject them in an unpublished 14 page opinion (Jan 04 2002 No. 99-6438; D.C. No. CIV-97-588-C/W.D.Okla.) which is frightening to say the least of their unwarranted conclusions! And even here we are mindful that it had previously been the position of Minister Shabaka’s Appellant Counsels and himself to challenge the credibility of the States case and subsequent conviction, with emphasis on a New Trial as room to press for exoneration as opposed to mere modification of sentence to life imprisonment. The current level of Defense he’s been receiving for over two years has made effort to “save his life” not by exoneration, rather by modification based upon thorough challenging of the only aggravator which has him on Death Row, i.e. Heinous, atrocious, cruel (H.A.C.). An aggravator which is not factual to the circumstance of the crime in which Minister Shabaka has been wrongfully convicted. Though we applaud the diligence of Minister Shabaka’s Federal Public Defender for contesting the H.A.C. issue, we do not minimize the fact that he was permitted seven (7) months to prepare the Brief of Minister Shabaka for the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in which only three (3) weeks were used due to a full case load and being heavily swamped by cases of critical import, some pending imminent execution. In three (3) weeks time there was simply no way possible to give fair attention to all the issues granted on the Application for Appealability to the 10th Circuit, this being so his most important issues toward possible exoneration were dropped, and as such Minister Shabaka’s claim has suffered irreversible damage.

His Appellant Counsel didn’t have confidence they could fully develop said issues in the three (3) week period, or because he didn’t think the issues would get Minister Shabaka relief in light of procedural bars already dictating as to how they could navigate their propositions to the Court.

Even on Minister Shabaka’s Actual Innocence claim which the 10th Circuit granted on the Application of Appealability, his Federal Public Defender dropped the issue but noted to the Court in response to the A.G.’s comment regarding the drop of this very significant claim: “Further, at the present stage of litigation, the issue of actual innocence is relevant only to the consideration of whether an appropriately placed procedural bar should be set aside in favor of reviewing a claim based on Constitutional error. Because this claim was barred improperly by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the federal district court, the bar should not be relied on by this Court to preclude a merits review.

Consequently, Appellees assertion regarding Mr. Robinsons actual innocence claim are misplaced. See Brief of Appellee at 14-15.

“Because Mr. Robinson pursued his claim properly on post-conviction by raising the claim and requesting an evidentiary hearing, he is entitled to a merits review of the instant proposition. Such review has never been afforded and this Court should correct that error. The error should be remedied by remanding this case to the district court for a full and fair evidentiary hearing….”

Appellant’s Reply Brief In The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, December 8, 2000, pages 9-10.

Governor Henry, we recognise that the Oklahoma scheme toward clemency commences first by way of a favorable review and recommendation by the Assigned Clemency Board, they then pass their findings and conclusions to you for review and final approval or rejection of the request to grant clemency. Minister Shabaka’s Appeals have not been finalized; technically however there is not scant chance he’ll have a favorable ruling at the United States Supreme Court. It is the consensus of FASOMS to petition your administration for involvement in preventing the Execution of an innocent man, or at the very least, a man convicted of a crime which raises numerous questions as to the legitimacy of his imprisonment considering the vague evidence against him and unreliable testimony of witnesses which (questionably) favored the Prosecution, though most being at one time favorable to clearing Minister Shabaka. We pray that you see, even under the conviction at present, Minister Shabaka is not deserving of being subject to Court Sanctioned Execution. He has redeeming value and this was apparent to some extent by jurors who could not conclude him to be a continuing threat to society, though the Prosecutor attempted to convince them otherwise. There was simply non-existent evidence to sustain the mischaracterization of Minister Shabaka’s person.

Governor Henry, we know that Minister Shabaka is a humbled and devout adherent of the Islamic faith, but in view of the terrorist attack of 9/11, we realise that misplaced American patriotism would demand the killing of any Muslim on Death Row irrespective of why they are there. We appeal to your sense of honor and fairness to not be won over by such sentiments. Avenging the 9/11 terrorist attacks should not be toward one who has no relation to such evil, and because it is assumed the measure was by way of a religious decree. Minister Shabaka opposes terrorism. And we feel you should have no bias towards him because he is a Muslim.

We would like you to strongly consider looking into the matter of Minister Shabaka’s confinement. This is his first time in prison, which we are convinced is circumstantial due to a wrongful conviction, that having been said there lies nothing of record to remotely suggest Minister Shabaka has forfeited his right to life. And his entire while in prison he has managed under strict discipline and caused no problems to the Administration even in light of the peaceful protest of June 16 1993 contesting deplorable prison conditions and poor quality of food distribution.

The case before you is deserving of your attention and to decide favorably on behalf of FASOMS. The Petition to Stop the Execution of Minister Shabaka would in no way compromise your firm stance favoring Capital Punishment, but shows you have a love for the maintenance of Justice; and definitely the execution of Minister Shabaka would be a grave injustice.

We are confident that Minister Shabaka can best articulate the injustice against him, and even if you oppose the idea of listening to a Condemned Prisoner, we think it wise of you to at least organize a small investigation team to speak with him regarding his claims of innocence. This the Prosecution failed to do, and consequently oversaw the conviction of an innocent man.

In closing we would like to re-emphasise that we pray you give fairness to this Petition. God’s grace be upon all deserving of it.

FASOMS
18 Lothian Terrace
Newtongrange
Midlothian, Scotland

We, the undersigned, have read the Petition to Stop the Execution of Minister Shabaka, and strongly urge Governor Brad Henry, the Oklahoma State Governor, to investigate his claims of innocence and halt his execution.

Minister Shabaka was convicted without any physical or forensic evidence.

Much of the witness testimony at his trial was contradictory and highly unreliable.

The legal representation he received at his trial, direct appeal and the preparation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was not competent. An attorney with significant experience of capital cases and appeals has examined the transcripts of the trial of Walanzo Shabaka (formerly Robinson), and stated in an affidavit that the performance of Walanzo’s court appointed trial counsel was professionally unreasonable and legally ineffective.

For these reasons we urge Governor Henry to halt the execution of Walanzo Shabaka, investigate his claims of innocence, and stop an innocent man from going to the Execution Chamber.

Min Walanzo Shabaka (Robinson), 189399 D/R
H-Unit, S.W. 3-1
Oklahoma State Penatentiary
PO Box 97
McAlester, Oklahoma 74502

Canadian Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

What are your interests?

Studies in 1) Black political science; 2) African and Asian history/politics; 3) psychotherapy; and 4) martial arts: Yang Style Taijiquan and Jeet Kune Do.

What are some of your hobbies?

Writing about my life experiences in South Central Los Angeles and expressing my thoughts in writing concerning current events both political and international.

Do you have a religious preference? (optional)

I am a devout Muslim/Shia Ithna Ashari. My religion is Shi'ite Islam.

What language(s) do you speak?

English (American Standard)

What qualities would you like to find in a pen pal?

Honesty, trustworthiness, ... love for humanity, open mindedness, ... and a profound love for God Almighty and who has no bias toward Islam.

Would you prefer a pen pal who could visit you?

Yes.

Are you already writing to other people? If so, how many?

Family members and a couple of close associates.

Other comments:

I do not wish to correspond with anyone who only wants to discuss politics; and who does not look forward to placing forth effort to establish a working/lasting friendship. And, no offense, I do not care to correspond with gays or lesbians. Thank you!

The Condemned . . . Innocent

Interview with Minister Walanzo Shabaka - Shi'a Muslim Death Row in Oklahoma

Brief information on the case surrounding our Brother, Minster Walanzo Shabaka

Posters of Minister Walanzo Shabaka

Petition for Governor of Oklahoma!

Missive #1-7 from Minister Walanzo Shabaka

INSIDE DEATH ROW IN OKLAHOMA

Robinson v. State, 937 P.2d 101 (Okl.Cr. 1997). (PCR)

Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Bana Blasdel, J., of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 900 P.2d 389, affirmed. Defendant applied for postconviction relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Lane, J., held that: (1) defendant waived constitutional claim concerning misconduct and prejudice of jury; (2) defendant waived claim of factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were not properly raised on postconviction appeal; and (4) allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel evidenced solely by failure to present argument or claim on direct appeal was not enough for Court to find that counsel was ineffective. Denied. Johnson, J., concurred in result. Lumpkin, J., concurred in result with opinion.

Robinson v. State, 900 P.2d 389 (Okl.Cr. 1995). (Direct Appeal)

Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Bana Blasdel, J., of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Lane, J., held that: (1) evidence sustained conviction; (2) testimony using gang names was not highly prejudicial; (3) prosecutor's statement that fatal shot was fired into victim's chest was based on facts in evidence; (4) prosecutor's comment that defendant's denial that he had .38 with him at time of murder constituted an admission of guilt was fair comment; (5) prosecutor's expressing opinion about defendant's guilt did not require reversal; (6) evidence was sufficient for jury to find aggravating circumstance that murder was heinous, atrocious or cruel; (7) arresting officer's testimony that he was working the gang task force did not inject evidentiary harpoon into proceedings; and (8) counsel was not ineffective. Affirmed.

LANE, Judge:
Appellant, Walanzo Deon Robinson, was tried by jury and convicted of the crime of First Degree Murder in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 701.7, Case No. CRF-89-4791 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, before the Honorable Bana Blasdel, District Judge. The jury recommended the Appellant be sentenced to death, finding that Appellant's murder of victim Dennis Hill was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The trial court sentenced accordingly. On appeal, Appellant raises seven propositions of error. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

In the early morning hours of May 19, 1989, Dennis Eugene Hill was shot and killed on a street in northeast Oklahoma City. He was twenty-six (26) years old and sold crack cocaine for a living. The shooting took place in the vicinity of a popular bar and area known for drug trafficking, so there were many people present at the shooting, even though it took place between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m.

Earlier that evening, Hill and a man identified as "Bandit" argued with each other over either money, drug turf or both. According to eyewitness testimony, Bandit had a gun during that confrontation. The final confrontation between the two men was preceded by an argument over which of the two would get the other "busted". As the argument ended, Bandit fired a warning shot into the ground and Hill turned and ran. Hill was shot twice in the back, falling forward into the street. Bandit walked over to Hill and shot him twice more, once in the shoulder and once in the chest, while Hill asked why Bandit was shooting him.

Testimony placed Bandit at the scene, identified by no fewer than four witnesses. He was identified by name, clothing, and physical description. Although there were some inconsistencies in the clothing descriptions, Appellant was positively identified as "Bandit" and as the person who shot Hill. Appellant fled to California where he was arrested on September 7, 1989, on an outstanding Oklahoma City murder warrant.

* * * *

Appellant made no secret of the fact that he intended to retain his drug territory at all costs, even if that meant killing Hill. He threatened Hill and purposely frightened him into running from Appellant by firing his gun into the ground near Hill's feet. He shot Hill as he ran, and, knowing that Hill was trapped, calmly walked over and looked into Hill's face as he shot him. He leisurely walked away, confiding in witnesses that he killed Hill for no other reason than that he was "talking shit". Considering the manner of this killing, the suffering of the victim, the attitude of the killer, and the pitiless nature of this crime, we cannot say, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, that the jury's finding of the heinous, atrocious and cruel aggravator was not supported by sufficient evidence.