You currently do not have JavaScript enabled in your web browser.
The ABA website relies on JavaScript for display purposes.
To fully experience the ABA site, please enable javascript.
Antonio Richardson - Juvenile Death Penalty

BORDERLINE RETARDED AND JUVENILE OFFENDER ANTONIO RICHARDSON NO LONGER FACES EXECUTION IN MISSOURI

Updates

  • October 28, 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed Antonio's death sentence, and he no longer faces the death penalty. The Court based its ruling on last year's US Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona. In Ring, the US Supreme Court held that only juries, not judges, can hand down a death sentence. For more information, read the report here.

  • March 6, 2001, the US Supreme Court temporarily stayed his execution date until it decided Atkins v. Virginia. On June 20, 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled in Atkins that it is unconstitutional to execute persons with mental retardation. Later that month, the Court denied Antonio's cert and habeas petition and remanded his case. Antonio remains under a sentence of death.

For additional news coverage of this case, and clemency letters written to Governor Holden, please see the end of this Alert.

Antonio Richardson -- who was just 16 years old, borderline retarded and neurologically impaired at the time of his offense -- is now scheduled for execution on March 7, 2001 in Missouri. He was convicted of participating in the rape and deaths of two young women and has now all but exhausted any remaining avenues of judicial relief. His fate will most likely rest with Governor Bob Holden. Originally, Antonio was going to accept a sentence of life in prison in exchange for a plea of guilty, but was pressured to reject it on the eve of trial by a local community activist. In the sentencing phase of his trial, critical evidence regarding his mental functioning and brain damage was never presented to the jury nor fully considered by the sentencing judge. Antonio would be one of the youngest offenders executed in the United States since the reinstitution of the death penalty in 1973. His execution would be contrary to American standards of justice, fairness, and decency as well as international law. This is a call for his sentence to be commuted to life in prison. In appealing for clemency on behalf of Antonio Richardson, we do not, in any way, seek to either excuse the crime or belittle the pain and suffering it caused the family and friends of Julie and Robin Kerry.

I. ANTONIO WAS THE PRODUCT OF A BROKEN, POVERTY STRICKEN FAMILY AND WAS ROUTINELY ABANDONED BY HIS DRUG ADDICTED, YOUNG MOTHER

Antonio was the second of three boys born in close succession to Gwendolyn Williams who was an 18 year old, single parent when she gave birth to Antonio. Antonio never knew his father and never experienced a relationship with any kind of "father figure." His mother was uneducated, unemployed and extremely poor; the family lived in a one bedroom apartment and subsisted on food stamps and public assistance. Moreover, Gwendolyn had a debilitating kidney ailment as well as a serious addiction to drugs and alcohol. She routinely abandoned her young children -- sometimes for weeks at a time -- triggering the involvement of the State's Division of Family Services. Antonio and his brothers were often "bounced" from house to house of extended family members. Antonio undertook responsibility for feeding and clothing his younger brother Carlos and for ensuring that he got to school.

II. ANTONIO SUFFERS FROM BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION AND BRAIN DAMAGE, BOTH OF WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR HIS THINKING, JUDGMENT AND IMPULSE CONTROL WHILE INCREASING HIS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE INFLUENCE OF OTHERS

From his earliest days in school, Antonio was identified as a child with significant learning problems, depression and poor academic performance. Testing has consistently shown him to be borderline mentally retarded with significant impairment in the areas of attention and concentration, memory, learning, planning, judgment, problem solving, speech and language skills, spatial and conceptual skills and motor skills. In addition, neuropsychological testing revealed significant organic brain damage in his frontal lobes and brain stem areas. This damage substantially affects his ability to regulate arousal, to process information, to think and integrate information, to reason abstractly, to make decisions and to control impulses. The combined effect of his retardation and brain damage is to make him think, act and function like a child. Indeed, comprehensive testing before his trial indicated that his educational level was that of a seven year old.

III. THE SENTENCING JURY WAS NEVER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REGARDING HIS BORDERLINE RETARDATION AND BRAIN DAMAGE NOR WAS THIS EVIDENCE FULLY CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE

At sentencing, Antonio was represented by an attorney who had never participated in -- or even observed -- a penalty phase in a capital case. The attorney failed to present the expert neuropsychologist who would have testified to Antonio's gross impairment and its effect upon his thinking, behavior and culpability. Nevertheless, the jury became deadlocked over whether a death sentence was appropriate which, under Missouri law, resulted in the trial judge making the final determination. And while the judge did hear the testimony of the neuropsychologist, he did so after he had already announced that death would be the sentence imposed on Antonio.

IV. ANTONIO COOPERATED WITH THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CRIME, HAS CONTINUOUSLY EXPRESSED HIS REMORSE AND WAS, JUST BEFORE HIS TRIAL, PRESSURED INTO REJECTING A PLEA TO LIFE

Immediately after the crime, Antonio telephoned the police and gave a voluntary statement regarding what had occurred and his involvement. He implicated himself and described what each of the others who were involved in the crime had done. He has continuously expressed his remorse and sadness for what happened and accepts responsibility for his actions. Because of his cooperation and level of involvement in the crime, the prosecution originally offered him a plea to a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. However, a local activist, who was assigning racial motives to the prosecution, involved himself in Antonio's case and convinced Antonio -- against the advice of counsel -- to reject the plea offer and to "fight on."

V. STANDARDS OF DECENCY HAVE EVOLVED TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE TO EXECUTE PEOPLE WITH MENTAL RETARDATION

People with mental retardation should not be exempt from prosecution, nor should their disability be considered as an excuse for criminal behavior. However, their cognitive limitations necessarily reduce their culpability and simple justice would require that the penalties imposed for their criminal acts be proportionate to their culpability. Moreover, for any mentally retarded defendant, there is so great a likelihood of "miscommunication, misinformation, and an inadequate defense that the imposition of the death penalty is unacceptable." (The ARC)

For the United States Supreme Court, determining whether or not the execution of persons with mental retardation is Constitutional turns on the analysis of whether or not it violates the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court has looked to "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. In identifying these standards, the Supreme Court has noted the critical role of an evolving national consensus. In the 1989 Supreme Court case of Penry v Lynaugh, the Court held that it was not yet satisfied that there existed a national consensus condemning the execution of the mentally retarded . At that time, only two states - Georgia and Maryland - had legislation explicitly prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded. However, the last ten years has seen a dramatic shift in national standards of decency. Of the thirty-eight states that permit the death penalty, thirteen have now outlawed the execution of people with mental retardation, and six more states are currently considering similar legislation.

VI. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC AMERICAN STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct. Adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity -- even the brain -- are still developing. Indeed, immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under eighteen to assume the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions. Moreover, family dysfunction and mental impairment -- such as that experienced by Antonio Richardson -- only exacerbate the vulnerabilities of youth.

A number of organizations such as the American Bar Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the Juvenile Law Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the National Mental Health Association urge that the execution for a crime committed while a juvenile is simply unacceptable in a civilized society.

VII. A MAJORITY OF STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT SUBJECTING ADOLESCENTS AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED TO THE DEATH PENALTY IS CONTRARY TO BASIC AND EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY

Of the 38 states that permit the death penalty, only 23 permit the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. Among these 23 states, only 16 have juvenile offenders on their death rows while only 7 have carried out actual executions of juveniles since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973. In 1999, the State of Montana abolished the juvenile death penalty while the Florida Supreme Court raised the age of eligibility from 16 to 17. A growing number of states are considering legislation to abolish the execution of juvenile offenders, including: Arizona, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. Moreover, a recent national poll conducted by the Houston Chronicle indicated that solid support for the capital punishment of juvenile offenders has fallen to only 26%.

VII. EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the United States acts in defiance of substantial international consensus and law. Indeed, such executions have all but ended around the world, except in the United States. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all of the world's nations combined. The only other countries that still execute juveniles are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (China, Yemen, and Pakistan have recently abolished the use of capital punishment for juveniles). The death penalty for juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the American Convention of Human Rights. While the United States has not yet ratified the CRC and specifically reserved its right to execute juveniles when ratifying the ICCPR, the execution of Antonio Richardson would further alienate the United States from the international community. Moreover, it would further damage our legitimacy as a world leader in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly the rights of children.

Under Missouri law, the Governor has the exclusive power to commute a sentence of death to life in prison. Please write to:

Governor Bob Holden
State Capitol Building
Room 216
P.O. Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-3222
Fax: 573-751-1495
constit@mail.state.mo.us

Please read a selection of clemency appeals to Governor Bob Holden:

Please read a selection of news articles on this case:

For additional information on this case, please visit:

For additional information on the juvenile death penalty, please visit: