Report No. 210 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 13.361 (United States)

• Year: 2021
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Merits

REPORT No. 210/20

CASE 13.361

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS (PUBLICATION)

JULIUS OMAR ROBINSON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 224

August 12, 2020

Original: English

Approved electronically by the Commission on August 12, 2020

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 210/20. Case 13.361. Admissibility and Merits (Publication). J.O.R.. United States of America. August 12, 2020

www.cidh.org

INDEX

I. INTRODUCTION 3

II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 3

A. Petitioners 3

B. State 4

III. ADMISSIBILITY 5

A. Competence, duplication of procedures and international res judicata 5

B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition 5

C. Colorable claim 6

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 6

A. The federal death penalty system 6

B. Race and the federal death penalty in Texas 7

C.... ...J. selection process 7

D.... ...F. background, trial and death sentence 7

E. Post-conviction proceedings 9

F. Legal proceedings regarding the lethal injection protocol 12

V. ANALYSIS OF LAW 13

A. Preliminary considerations 13

B.... ...R. to equality before the law and access to an effective remedy 14

1. General considerations regarding equality before the law 14

2. Race and equality before the law in the application of the death penalty in the United States 15

3. A. of the case 17

C.... ...R. to a fair trial and right to due process of law 19

1. Use of unadjudicated offenses and future dangerousness in the imposition of the death penalty 19

2. I. assistance of court-appointed counsel 20

D. The right to access to informationwith respect to the death penalty decision-making process and the lethal injection protocol 23

E. Right not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment 24

1. Method of execution 24

2. The deprivation of liberty on death row and the right of protection against cruel, infamous or unusual punishment 25

F. Right to life and to protection against cruel, infamous or unusual punishment with respect to the eventual execution of Julius Omar Robinson 25

VI. REPORT No. 162/19 AND INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE 26

VII. REPORT No. 199/20 AND INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE 27

VIII. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

IX. PUBLICATION 27

1. INTRODUCTION

1. On April 3, 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission”, “Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition and request for precautionary measures1 submitted by S.K.K. from the California’s Federal Public Defender’s Office (the “petitioner”),2 alleging the international responsibility of the United States of America (the “State” or “the United States”) for the violation of the rights of J.O.R. (“Mr. R.”), an African-American who is on death row in the state of Texas.

2. On October 2, 2017, the Commission notified the parties of the application of Article 36 (3) of its Rules of Procedure, since the petition falls within the criteria established in its Resolution 1/16, and placed itself at the disposition of the parties to reach a friendly settlement. The parties enjoyed the time periods provided for in the IACHR’s Rules to present additional observations on the merits. All the information received by the Commission was duly transmitted to the parties.

2. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Petitioners

3. The petitioners allege that the United States has violated Mr. R.’s human rights in the trial that resulted in his federal sentence to death. S., they raise seven claims of violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (“American Declaration” or “Declaration”).

4. F., the petitioners allege that the State of Texas has a long history of racially discriminatory use of the death penalty. They indicate that while black people constitute only 11.8% of the population of Texas, they account for 36.5% of its executions. S., petitioners argue that the prosecutors in Mr. Robinson’s case weeded out all but one black person from sitting on the jury. They state that this, coupled with the disparate impact on black defendants in Texas, evidences intentional racial discrimination sufficient to establish an equal protection violation under the American Declaration. Petitioners further allege that the use of an uncharged, unadjudicated attempted murder as evidence that Mr. R. posed a future danger from prison was fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to his defense. They also allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel given the failure to adequately prepare for the penalty phase.

5. According to the petitioners, Texas federal courts have a history of closing the courthouse doors to death-row inmates who seek to vindicate their constitutional rights through post-conviction. In this regard, they allege that the district court improperly denied discovery regarding Mr. Robinson’s well-pled claims of an equal protection violation and ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioners also allege that the district court wrongfully deprived Mr. Robinson of an evidentiary hearing even though there were significant factual disputes relevant to his equal protection and ineffective-assistance claims.

6. Petitioners further argue that the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrongfully denied Mr. Robinson’s right to appeal the denial of his post-conviction claims. They assert that the repeated denials of any opportunity to litigate one’s claims are representative of a pattern in Texas. Finally, petitioners indicate that M.R. faces execution by lethal injection when that mode of execution as currently practiced creates an unacceptable and wholly unnecessary risk of inflicting excruciating pain and suffering. They argue that the U.S. Government designated as “confidential” the lethal injection protocol as well as critical portions of deposition testimony revealing the qualifications, training, and procedures used by personnel involved in its lethal injection process.

7. With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners indicate that Mr. Robinson’s claims were raised and dismissed at the district court level, on direct appeal, during post-conviction and habeas proceedings, with the U.S. Supreme Court eventually denying his petitions for certiorari. The petitioners conclude that the United States has violated the rights enshrined in Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security), II (right to equality before the law), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XXIV (right to petition) and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration.

2. State

8. The United Stated alleges that the petition is inadmissible because it does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of any rights in the American Declaration and because the Commission lacks competence rationae personae to entertain certain portions of Mr. R.’s claims. The State additionally submits that some of the arguments are precluded by the fourth instance formula as they amount to a mere disagreement with determinations of domestic courts, rendered in compliance with the American Declaration.

9. According to the United States, Mr. Robinson’s claim regarding the alleged general administration of the death penalty in a racially discriminatory manner, fails to set forth a concrete violation of rights in an individual case. The State concludes, based on IACHR’s decisions, that this claim constitutes an actio popularis and therefore lacks competence rationae personae. It further alleges that the claim of discrimination during jury selection fails to establish a violation of Articles I and II of the American Declaration. It asserts that the district court analyzed the bases for all three of the preemptory strikes exercised by the prosecutor against black persons on the venire panel, and concluded that there was no basis for a claim of discrimination.

10. The United States points out that Mr. Robinson’s proceedings were conducted in compliance with U.S. law and the rights set forth in the American Declaration. Although the State admits that the likelihood of Mr. Robinson’s future dangerousness was one...