Death for the innocent, parole for the murderers

GERMANY (SANEPR.com) June 19, 2008 -- On September 5, 1991, Jessie Cummings’ two wives shot and killed his sister, Judy Ann Moody Mayo, and his minor niece, Melissa Moody, in Coal County. Cummings was 100 miles away in Oklahoma City at that time. Almost five years later, he was convicted of the initially unsolved crimes based on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonies of his co-defendants, Juanita and Sherry Cummings.

On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction for the murder of his sister, but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the murder of his niece. An evidentiary hearing was ordered and was held in 2001. Following the hearing, the magistrate issued findings of fact and conclusion of law favorable to the prosecution.

The murder weapon has never been located in either murder. Cummings has not confessed. There is no evidence of a motive on his part. The trial showed the prisoner was on good terms with the victims. Unlike his co-defendants, Cummings refused to accept plea offers. He has consistently maintained his innocence of these offenses and asks for DNA testing and a thorough investigation in the case.

W. A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, writes in a letter, “There can be no DNA testing because there is simply nothing to test. The evidence in this case, consisting primarily of the sworn testimony of two witnesses/ accomplices, was submitted to a jury, which found it sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Coal County was a sparsely populated county with a population of less than 6000 people in 1990. Some of the jurors knew Cummings personally. Most of them admitted that they had read about the case in the newspaper or heard about it on T.V.

Robert T. Matsui, Member of Congress, replies to a letter from one of Cummings’ supporters, “Since the reinstatement of the death penalty twenty-five years ago, one out of every one hundred of those sentenced to death in the United States has been exonerated after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. One innocent death is too many. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001.” The Congressman adds, “Garnering the support of more than one half of the United States House of Representatives, this bill reflects the growing sentiment that the present death penalty system is in dire need of reform.”

Daniel J. Bryant, Acting Assistant Attorney General of Washington, D.C. was referred a letter to the President concerning the death row inmate. He asserts, “With respect to DNA testing, the Administration and the U.S. Department of Justice support the utilization of the DNA testing technology both for the reliable identification and conviction of the guilty and for the protection of the innocent.” He concludes, “However, the states determine the specific conditions under which postconviction DNA testing will be provided in state cases.”

The Office of the Governor of Oklahoma informs Cummings, “Allegations of wrongdoing of local officials, including city or county officials, or information about wrongful convictions should be brought to the attention of the appropriate District Attorney.” It implies, “If it is the conduct of the District Attorney that is questioned, you should bring this matter directly to the attention of the Attorney General.”

The role of the Attorney General’s office is to represent the state in this matter. Edmondson utters, “I do so with confidence that the jury reached the correct decision.”

The office of the Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma replies to Cummings, “The separation of governmental powers prevents the Lt. Governor from overruling or interfering with the decision of an appointed judge.” It refers to the Oklahoma Bar Association that “can be contacted in the case of unethical behavior.”

“The Office of the General Counsel investigates grievances alleging attorney misconduct which violates the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the bahavior of an attorney may seem inappropriate, it does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct” indicates the Oklahoma Bar Association. In a second letter, the Council on Judicial Complaints notifies Cummings, “After thorough review and consideration, the Council has dismissed the complaint.”

Cummings’ trial counsel was terminated from the Oklahoma indigent defense system in 1997 for failing to respond to clients needs. His co-trial counsel was found to be neglectful of his client’s business in the same year.

In return for Juanita Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to second degree murder with an agreement that no other charges would be filed against her with a recommended sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.

In return for Sherry Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to two counts of accessory after the fact of murder and one count of abuse or permitting a child to be abused with a sentence totaling thirty-five (35) years imprisonment and an agreement that no other charges be filed against her.

The United States Supreme Court has denied Jessie Cummings’ request for certiorari. The state has asked that an execution date be set.

For details of this case go to www.iippi.org/inmates/oklahoma/jessiejamescummings.html .

The Innocent In Prison Project International (IIPPI) illustrates several cases of possible errors of justice on the IIPPI website. Katja Pumm started this project in 2004. She can be contacted at
Phone: +49-4165-217 2665
Email: info@iippi.org
Internet: www.iippi.org and www.innocentinprison.org
###