Executions in 2018: min. 690 plus 'thousands' in China

Arthur Lee Williams

THE DEATH SENTENCE OF ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS WAS COMMUTED TO LIFE IN DECEMBER 2018!

Arthur Lee Williams is seeking help for his Federal Appeal. This message was sent to us by his sister:

Justice Denied!
Arthur Lee Williams II - #00000736

Convicted by a court of “LAW” not a court of “JUSTICE” which included the FOLLOWING!
1 – Suppressing and destroying exculpatory evidence.
2 – Lack of Investigation.
3 – Ineffective assistance of Counsel.
4 – Statements & Information when requested were either missing or destroyed.
5 – Harassment and intimidation of witnesses.
6 – Inflammatory closing argument.
7 – State misled the jury by introducing “Staged Photographs.”
8 – Jury selection excluded not only Non-Whites, but also anyone whom did not believe in the “Death Penalty”!

Detailed information regarding his case can be found on his website – www.ArthurLeeWilliamsII736.com under “About the Case”.

Due to the decision on 06/15/12by the “State of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals”, whereby they upheld the result of the punishment phase of the “DeathSentence”given at trial (please refer to below).

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. AP-76,455

Ex parte ARTHUR LEE WILLIAMS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FROM HARRIS COUNTY

THE COURT WRITES IN PART THAT …
In the present proceeding, Stafford [Arthur’s state court appointed attorney] appears to have "fallen on his sword." We count twenty-nine instances recited in his affidavit in which he claims that he performed deficiently at trial, only some of which involve claims that have been filed and set for briefing. It is a serious matter when this Court is confronted with an attorney who so pervasively impeaches his own conduct.

Out of perfectly laudable motives, a conscientious lawyer may be unduly prone toward second-guessing his performance when he has failed to obtain the result for which he had hoped. Or, he may have conducted a harsh but honest self-assessment of his performance.

THE COURT RULED THAT…
A defendant is not entitled to perfect or errorless counsel. Nevertheless, when addressing the question of ineffective assistance of counsel, we should take into account an attorney's admission of fault.

AND YET REGARDING ARTHUR’S INITIAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION THE COURT RULED THAT THERE WAS…
No Deficient Performance

HOW CAN THIS BE???

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Elsa Alcala wrote she should have granted Williams a new punishment trial because jurors in 1983 had no way considered mitigating evidence in Williams’ case. She believed his sentence was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Our Next Step: We now need to raise funds ASAP to retain counsel to address his Federal Appeal!

If you care to help please either refer to his website at: www.ArthurLeeWilliamsII736.com, or you can write Arthur at:

Arthur Lee Williams II
Polunsky Unit, #00000736
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, TX 77351-8580