If you are a regular reader of this blog or you know me personally, you realize that I believe one person can make a significant difference in our society and that all of us are obligated, in our own ways, to do something for the betterment of us all. This is one reason why I became a journalist and author. 
There is no better example of how much an individual can change our nation than Bryan Stevenson, the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, and the Harvard-educated lawyer who is the real-life hero of my fourth nonfiction book, Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, and Justice In a Southern Town.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling in (Graham v. Florida) that Bryan was instrumental in arguing. More on that later, but first, some background.
I first learned about Bryan nearly twenty years ago when my good friend, Walt Harrington, wrote a long profile about him in The Washington Post magazine. At the time, Bryan was representing death row inmates in Alabama — a thankless and dangerous career choice, especially for an Ivy League lawyer who easily could have earned a six figure salary in private practice. Most his clients were poor black men. Walt was impressed with Bryan’s fearless dedication to justice, his deeply rooted religious beliefs, and his absolute devotion to righting wrongs.
I had just finished writing The Hot House: Life Inside Leavenworth Prison, and I wanted to investigate a death penalty case because I had been told that there was a higher probability of an innocent person being wrongly convicted during a murder investigation than in any other criminal case. (Click here for list of innocent men sentenced to death.)
Walt introduced me to Bryan and during our first chat, he told me that one of his clients on death row was innocent. Of course, I was skeptical. When Bryan added that this client was black and had been convicted of killing a white teenage girl in Alabama, I perked up my ears. And then he dropped the bombshell. The murder had taken place in Monroeville, the hometown of author Harper Lee. That community was the inspiration behind Maycomb, the fictional town in Lee’s classic novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. I couldn’t have found a better murder case, especially one where the accused was a black man and the victim was a white woman.
During the next two years, I became convinced that Bryan was correct. His client had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. But state officials refused to release him even though Bryan had proved him innocent. One official told me: “You’re crazy if you think I am going to release a black man accused of killing a white girl in the South until I have someone else to put on death row.”
It was only after Bryan called in 60 Minutes that he was able to bring enough pressure on the community to get his innocent client freed. Meanwhile, the actual killer remained free.
Bryan saved his client’s life and my book won a number of prizes and was sold to the movies, but never made. That’s another story.
I kept track of Bryan’s career and I was not surprised when his death penalty work began winning him the acclaim that he deserved. One of the first recognitions was a MacArthur Foundation “Genius” Award that paid him $500,000. In keeping with his character, he poured that money into the fledgling death penalty organization that he had founded in Montgomery. There was no new sports car, no exotic trip, no new house. He did the same when he was awarded the Gleitsman Foundation Citizen Activist Award, another $500,000 cash prize and the Olof Palme Prize which paid him $75,000.
Bryan’s recent crusade, in addition to his death penalty work, has been defending juveniles locked-up and sentenced to life prison terms without any chance of being freed.
Last November, Bryan and other advocate lawyers presented two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that questioned whether juveniles could be sentenced to life in prison without any chance of release for non-homicide crimes.
Bryan told the justices about Joe Sullivan who in 1989 was a mentally disabled thirteen-year-old boy living in a group home where he was regularly subjected to physical and sexual abuse.
On the day of the crime, two older boys convinced Joe to participate in a burglary. The three boys entered an empty home and one older boy took some money and jewelry before the three left. That afternoon, the elderly homeowner was raped in her home. She never saw her attacker. When one of the older boys was caught, he accused Joe of the sexual assault even though there was some suspicion that he was the actual rapist. Of course, he testified against Joe in return for a lighter sentence. So did the other older burglar as part of a plea dea. Thirteen-year-old Joe was tried in an adult court. A six-person jury heard and ruled on the case in record breaking time. The hearing began shortly after 9 a.m., and the jury returned its verdict at 4:55 p.m. so that everyone could go home for dinner.
During the trial, the prosecutor and witnesses made repeated references to the fact that Joe was African American and that the victim was white; one witness repeatedly said the rapist was a “colored boy” or “a dark colored boy.”
Biological evidence collected from the victim was not presented at trial and was destroyed before it could be subjected to DNA testing. Joe’s court appointed lawyer — who was later disbarred — did not object to a “voice identification” of Joe by the victim (who was blindfolded during the attack) that she had first rehearsed with the prosecutor before repeating it for the jury.
Joe was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole — in effect — giving him the equivalent of a death sentence lived out behind bars.
Joe was sent to an adult prison when he was just fourteen where he was repeatedly and brutally victimized by older inmates.
The second case presented to the highest court involved Terrance Graham, who was sixteen years old when he and a co-defendant tried to rob a store and the co-defendant hit the store manager with a pipe. Terrance was charged with armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He had no prior criminal record and, in exchange for a guilty plea, was sentenced to three years probation. A year later, Terrance was accused of committing a home invasion robbery with two 20-year-old men. He claimed he was innocent but admitted that he had violated probation by missing his curfew on the night of the crime. No jury trial was held, instead a trial judge sentenced Terrance to life in prison with no chance of parole for the original armed burglary charge — since he was a parole violator.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 4 in the Graham case that his sentence was unconstitutional and violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It did not voice an opinion on Joe’s case because its ruling on Graham’s also meant that Joe would automatically get a new hearing.
The court said that no one convicted of committing a crime — other than a murder — before the age of 18 can now be locked away forever without at some point being given the chance of making a case for release.
This does not mean that juveniles who commit henious crimes get to walk away because of their young age. An offender may have to spend 10, 20 or even 30 years behind bars. Nor is there any guarantee that their plea will be successful. But the court ruled that young defendants should be given a chance because of their age.
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that juveniles who committed “non-homicides” deserved a chance to “demonstrate maturity and reform.. and the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential.”
I believe the court didn’t go far enough. It should have ruled that juveniles under age 18 who commited murders should also be given a chance and should not be given life without parole sentences. This is because I think that some youngsters, especially those as young as 13, don’t fully understand the consequences of their actions, nor the fanality of death. (What’s your view?)
The court’s decision only squeaked by with one vote, but it is one of several recent rulings that have given me hope that eventually the court will take another look at another criminal justice issue: how persons with severe mental illnesses are sentenced for crimes that they committed when they were clearly delusional and psychotic.
I have spoken to Bryan about the need for the justices to re-examine the razor thin standard that is currently used when deciding if a person – with an obvious mental illness – should be executed for murder.
Knowing his dedication, I am certain it is on his agenda.
As for now, he remains a remarkable example of the power of one — someone who is using his skills as a lawyer to help others. To him, that’s more important than fame, glory, or fortune — and all of us are better because of his selfless acts.
You can read more about this case and Bryan’s work by visiting his group’s wedsite: http://www.eji.org/eji/
About the author:
I think your piece should have been titled “The Ongoing Power of One.” I've had the priviledge of meeting Bryan, like you, I've followed his accomplishments on behalf of humanity, and like you, I continue to be impressed with his this is not about me approach to what he does. In this day and age of look what I've done, in hindsight, perhaps your piece would have better been titled “A Category of One.”
I think that mental illness ought to be stipulated when a crime is obviously absurd, random and egregious. I assume the reference to 'razor-thin standard' is about the 'knowing right from wrong' business we hear about all the time. If 'insanity' can be stipulated by the nature of the crime itself and the surrounding elements, then issues of right and wrong don't have to be decided once the patient is medicated enough to be responsive to questions, particularly since the patients are coached in the court-run hospitals in mock-up rooms that look like courtrooms to sort of brainwash the patients to be malleable in court. The fact that the prosecution is pressured to convict regardless of the circumstances, or, in the case of heinous crimes, because of them, is problematic also. Unforgivable, banal bureaucratic behavior. Bring sunlight to the workings of the courthouses, see Amy Bach's http://www.ordinaryinjustice.com/ (it's hard to remain objectively analytical when confronted by nonsense)
I think that mental illness ought to be stipulated when a crime is obviously absurd, random and egregious. I assume the reference to 'razor-thin standard' is about the 'knowing right from wrong' business we hear about all the time. If 'insanity' can be stipulated by the nature of the crime itself and the surrounding elements, then issues of right and wrong don't have to be decided once the patient is medicated enough to be responsive to questions, particularly since the patients are coached in the court-run hospitals in mock-up rooms that look like courtrooms to sort of brainwash the patients to be malleable in court. The fact that the prosecution is pressured to convict regardless of the circumstances, or, in the case of heinous crimes, because of them, is problematic also. Unforgivable, banal bureaucratic behavior. Bring sunlight to the workings of the courthouses, see Amy Bach's http://www.ordinaryinjustice.com/ (it's hard to remain objectively analytical when confronted by nonsense)