Johnny Frank Garrett// Wrongful Conviction? (part 2)

In 1982, 18-year-old Johnny Frank Garrett is given the death sentence for the rape and murder of Sister Tadea Benz. With little hope for an appeal, and with declining mental health, Johnny Garrett awaits his execution.  However, the truth has a way of outing and in time many facts surrounding this case will be brought to light. Potential coverups, shoddy investigative techniques, inadequate defence, and questionable expert testimonies are all called into question. The most important question though is what value is given to a life that may have been wrongfully taken by the State? 

Transcript

In 1982, 18-year-old Johnny Frank Garrett was given the death sentence for the 1981 rape and murder of Sister Tadea Benz. With little hope for a successful appeal, and with declining mental health, Johnny Garrett awaited his execution.  However, the truth has a way of outing and in time many facts surrounding this case would eventually be brought to light. Potential coverups, shoddy investigative techniques, inadequate defence, and questionable expert testimonies were all called into question. The most important question though is what value is given to a life that may have been wrongfully taken by the State? - Teaser 

This episode contains themes that may be distressing to some listeners,  themes include extreme child abuse and mentions of bestiality. Listener discretion is advised.  

Hello and welcome to the Crime Valley Podcast, my name is Amber and today is part 2 of the Johnny Frank Garrett case. Don’t forget to stick around at the end of the episode to hear an announcement that I have to make. I would love to hear your thoughts on Johnny Frank Garrett. Feel free to join The Crime Valley discussion page on Facebook, where we can discuss the case further. 

Part 2

 Johnny Frank Garrett was born on Christmas Eve 1963 in the state of Oklahoma, and from the very beginning, his life was a struggle. Johnny’s mother, Charlotte Cameron separated from her children’s Father when Johnny was young. The family was poor and being a single-parent family without means, in the 1960s would have made surviving extremely difficult for Charlotte Cameron and her children. Johnny Garrett grew up in an environment that was far beyond dysfunctional. Stepfather after stepfather walked through his life, and it seemed that as soon as the last one left, another would come and take his place. In one instance Charlotte Cameron divorced one man and by the following month was remarried to another. Her choice of men to fill the role of husband and stepfather was clearly poor, and her children bore the brunt of these choices. Johnny Frank Garrett would develop quite a lengthy file with the Texas Youth Council. His childhood was a living nightmare and his lack of advantages in life was compounded by his learning difficulties. Johnny’s literacy skills were poor, and he took special education classes at school, and by 6th grade, he was still unable to read  Photos of a young Johnny show a smiling little boy, with big teeth, bright blue eyes, and a guileless face. He looks hopeful and open despite the difficulties he had already faced in life. In 1977, the year that Johnny turned 14, his teachers noted that he had become sullen and withdrawn. What they didn’t know was the nightmare that the teenager was facing at home. His current stepfather was his worst one yet. Only a decade or so older than his stepson, the new man of the house had started sexually abusing Johnny. He was pimping him out to other men for sex and forcing him to engage in acts of bestiality, while also making Johnny take part in pornographic videos. Here was a teenage boy, a victim of horrific and systemic physical and sexual abuse who had to carry the shame of what he had been forced to do. He had no protection and no support.  Reports say that multiple stepfathers had abused Johnny and that family members had introduced him to alcohol and drugs at a very young age. Johnny Garrett had been in and out of the juvenile system for years, but even though it was evident that he needed saving, no adult stepped in to do so. The bishop of Amarillo at the time had known Johnny for much of Johnny’s life. He was aware that Johnny would often sleep under the bleachers at the local high school, presumably in an attempt to escape the abuse that he received at home. Johnny dropped out of school early and had been involved in multiple petty crimes. Including vandalising his old high school not long before his arrest. 

Two days after his arrest, for Sister Tadea’s murder,  an arraignment was held before presiding judge George Dowlan. At the arraignment, Johnny Garrett proclaimed his innocence and repudiated a confession that he had supposedly made to police, within hours of his arrest. He explained that he had been in the St Francis convent on multiple occasions prior to sister Tadea’s murder. Johnny Garrett had not yet been appointed legal representation, but during the hearing an attorney named Vil Kolius came forward, requesting that he represent Garrett. This was a surprise to Johnny Garrett and his family who had no idea how the legal system was supposed to work. Judge George Dowlan approved Kolius’s representation of Garrett and would later appoint an attorney named Phil Jordan to also work on Garrett’s defence. Jordan had previously worked as a prosecutor for District attorney Danny Hill and had also grown up with him. While Johnny Garrett waited in jail for his trial he saw and heard very little of his attorney’s. He discussed his concerns with his mother Charlotte, and both of them felt that it wasn’t right, but at the same time they placed their trust in the two men, and expected them to do their best to defend Johnny. 

In May of 1982, just 3 months before Johnny Frank Garrett’s trial another murder trial had taken place in a different part of Texas. The defendant was 19 year old Jay Kelly Pinkerton, who we discussed in part one. Pinkerton, at the age of 17, and in two separate crimes, had brutally raped and murdered two women in the Amarillo area. Once he was arrested, his cockiness and complete lack of remorse for his crimes rubbed people the wrong way, and only served to raise public ire. The fact that the second attack on Sheri Lynn Welch could have been avoided altogether stuck in the craw of Amarillo's law enforcement agencies. Not surprisingly it was agreed that Jay Pinkerton would not receive a fair trial if his case was tried in Amarillo. The decision was made to move his trial to El Paso Texas. And yet...only months later, Johnny Frank Garrett was not accorded the same privilege. Even though he was the same age Pinkerton was when the crime was committed, even though his case was going to be tried in the same Amarillo court, before the same judge, and even though his case was just as high profile as Pinkerton’s, Perhaps even more so. The fact that Johnny Garrett was accused of the brutal rape and murder of a woman who had devoted her life to serving Christ made Garrett's case stand out in sharp relief, even when tested against the crimes of Pinkerton. To the public at large, Johnny Garrett was yet another teenaged low life who had taken the life of one of Amarillo’s vulnerable. The residents of the city were outraged, and they wanted retribution. If there was ever an example of a case where a defendant is tried by the court of public opinion, then this case is a  prime example. When the police chief at the time was allowed to publicly state “ We feel there’s no doubt we got our man”. Surely the notoriety and massive public outcry surrounding sister Benze's death required that there be a change of venue when it came to the trial? Garrett’s lawyers did on two separate occasions request that a change of venue take place, but state district judge George Dowlan denied the request both times. His reasoning was that knowledge of the crime was just as strong in other parts of Texas as it was in Amarillo and that changing the trial to a new location would be pointless. The fact that those exact same reasons could have been applied to the Pinkerton trial was a moot point. The Judge had made his decision, and  Johnny Frank Garrett’s trial would be held in Amarillo. 

The phenomena known as satanic panic was alive and well in 1981, and only added more of a burden to Johnny Garrett's defence. The 1960s had ended with the Hindman/Tate/LaBianca murders, which the press used to present a narrative of occultism and hedonism. The revelation of the oddball Manson family, the writing in blood at all 3 crime scenes, the Helter Skelter theory presented by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and mercurial Charles Manson himself only added fuel to the public bonfire of fear, gossip, and sensationalism. As the 1970s turned into the 1980s, crimes seemed to become more prolific, more bizarre, and more publicised. 1975 saw the DeFeo family murders in Amityville Ny. The crime was shocking, gruesome and hard to comprehend. A whole family, brutally murdered in the dead of night, by one of their own. In years to come the case would spawn a book and a series of movies titled Amityville horror, which played on the dubious claims of the Lutz family who moved into the home where the DeFeo murders took place. The horror movies would become intermingled with the real crime, and become something of an urban legend. Just like with the Tate/LaBianca murders the crimes became less about the victims and more about titillation and sensationalism. 

 By 1981 violent crimes had been rising for the past 4 decades, and an increasingly desensitised public was adopting a lock them up and throw away the key approach to criminals. The knowledge that Sister Tadea was murdered on Halloween convinced many that the crime was an act of Satanism. When the psychics’ vision of a man with a painted face and wig being the perpetrator, this was just further confirmation. Newspaper reports at the time and indeed to this day, continue to give incorrect information regarding the time of Sister Tadea’s murder. The fact that she was killed after midnight, in the early morning of Halloween rather than on the night of Halloween lends less credence to a psychotic man, in Halloween garb committing murder as some type of Satanic ritualism. 

On the 3rd August, 1982 jury selection began for Johnny Frank Garrett’s trial and on Wednesday 25th of August, the trial began. 

Johnny Garrett's mother and sister testified on his behalf on Monday the 30th of August. Both Charlotte Cameron and her 14-year-old daughter Janet said that Johnny had been with them at the family home on the night of the murder. Janet said that she and Johnny had stayed up late, playing checkers, and talking and listening to music. Between the hours of 10:30 pm and 3 am Janet claimed that Johnny had been in the house with her and that he had never gone outside. Charlotte Cameron testified that Janet and Johnny had stayed up late and that she had to tell them to turn the music down several times throughout the night. When the assistant prosecutor accused Janet of only crying because she was not telling the truth, Johnny Garrett stood up and glared at him, until a defence attorney convinced him to sit down.

June and Janet’s alibi for Johnny is of course at odds with the police supplementary report which I mentioned in part 1. According to that report Johnny Garrett was suspected by a neighbour of prowling, which resulted in a phone call to police. Two policemen in a patrol car followed a man from the vicinity of the convent, at one stage losing sight of him. When they again caught up with a man who looked like the one they had been pursuing, they found him standing outside the Garrett home. The man was aggressively hitting a bush outside the residence with a large stick. The patrolmen did not speak to the man, but they later identified him as Johnny Garrett. This incident was reported to have occurred around midnight on Friday the 30th, within a few hours of Sister Tadea’s murder. 

It was no coincidence that Johnny Garrett's arrest coincided with Potter County’s recent acquisition of a new piece of technology. In 1976 a physicist by the name of E. Roland Menzel had developed an argon laser device that would revolutionise fingerprint recognition. It was an invention that would eventually be used all over the world, and in years to come would be called one of the Milestones of Canadian Chemistry in the 20th Century by the Chemical Institute of Canada. In 1981 There were only 4 of its kind in the US, and just days after Sister Tadea’s murder, the Potter County sheriff’s department would become the proud owner of the 5th. The laser device meant that police were able to detect fingerprints on surfaces that had previously been problematic for fingerprint retrieval. Garrett’s defence team was going to have an uphill battle explaining how some of the fingerprints recovered from sister Tadea’s room belonged to Johnny Frank Garrett. These fingerprints included a left palm print and left middle fingerprint, lifted from the bent butter knife, found under the bed, and a left ring fingerprint taken from the headboard of the bed. While no blood was found on the butter knife, striations on the bed sheet were deemed to have been wiped there by a knife, although the knife type that caused the striations were unclear. It could have been the butter knife, the steak knife found in the convent driveway, or perhaps a different knife that had not been discovered. As for the butter knife, one of the defence team would later say that although the bent butter knife was admitted as evidence, the district attorney did not make any effort to show why it was bent or how it could have been used in the murder. It was in effect just there in the courtroom, effectively encouraging jurors to make up their own minds about the knife's real purpose. 

Pathologist Ralph Erdmann testified that the butter knife could be responsible for the multiple gouge wounds on Sister Tadea’s throat. Ralph Erdman would also testify that he was unable to state a time of death because the body had already been embalmed when he did his autopsy. Ralph Erdman said that he had taken a sperm sample from Sister Tadea’s body. The problem was that Erdmann seemed to vacillate between explanations as to what became of the sperm sample. At times the sample was said to have been misplaced or thrown away and at other times the sample was said to be so small that there was essentially none left to test after his initial findings. This of course meant that there was no opportunity for the sperm sample to be tested for blood time and secretor status. Something which could have excluded Johnny Garrett or implicated him further. 

What explanation could there possibly be for Johnny Garrett’s finger and palm prints being found on the murdered Nun’s bedroom? On a bed and a knife no less. 

Police Sgt Walt Yerger testified that Garrett had told him that after breaking into the convent, the Nun had woken up while Garrett was in her room and that Garrett had choked her until she passed out, at which point Garrett said that he had sex with her. It is interesting to note that Pathologist Ralph Erdmann also made a point of mentioning that Sister Tadea was already dead at the time she was raped. A layman might wonder how a pathologist who was unable to pinpoint a time of death due to embalming, was able to definitively state that a person was already deceased when a sexual assault occurred. 

On Tuesday the 31st of August Johnny Garrett took the stand. Putting a defendant on the stand is always a risky move. The pros and cons need to be carefully weighed up and many factors need to be taken into careful consideration. Either way, it seems that allowing the defendant to testify is not the norm, as it opens them up to cross-examination by the prosecution. Detectives claimed that after Johnny Garrett was arrested he quickly confessed to killing Sister Tadea. The fact that the confession was unsigned, repudiated by Garrett, and also not recorded meant that it would not be admissible in court, under Texas law. There was a caveat though. If Johnny Garrett took the stand and gave testimony that contradicted the contents of the confession, the prosecution would then be able to admit the confession as evidence and present it to the jury. The problem was that Johnny’s fingerprints couldn’t be explained away, and Garrett’s lawyers decided that only the defendant himself could give a plausible explanation as to why his own fingerprints had been found in Sister Tadea’s bedroom. 

Now the defence would need to explain away both the fingerprints and the confession. 

While on the stand Johnny told the court that while he had been in sister Tadeas’ room, he was not there when she was killed. Instead, Johnny admitted that he had been at the convent the day prior, intending to steal items. He said that at lunchtime on the 30th of October he entered the convent by way of the front door. He didn’t encounter anyone there, and he took a small butter knife from the kitchen and went upstairs. He claimed that he was wanting to steal stereo equipment and crucifixes. The butter knife was presumably taken to use on locked internal doors and drawers. Garrett said that the knife had been bent when he used it to try and pry open a stuck drawer. He believed that the fingerprints found on the headboard were a result of him steadying himself while leaning across the headboard to take a crucifix from the wall. Garrett's claims were put into question when Nuns from the convent said that they would have been eating lunch at that time of day and it would have been near impossible for Garrett to have entered their kitchen undetected. They also said that the front door was generally kept locked at that time of day and that a Nun would have been stationed in the front office, near the entrance.  

The alleged confession itself was short and lacked both a signature and detail. It read; My name is Johnny Frank Garrett. I am 17 years old and I live at 4000 NE 18th street  With my mother. On October 31, 1981, at approx 1:30 am, I was drunk on whiskey and had taken two hits of acid. I had heard that some of the nuns kept nice stereos where they lived. I went over to the convent and knocked a window out on the bottom floor. I went upstairs and went into one room. There was a Nun in bed and she acted as (if) she was going to scream. I started choking her until she passed out, then I had sex with her. I left the convent the same way I came in. UNSIGNED interestingly law enforcement had recorded the reading of Miranda rights to Johnny Garrett but had failed to record the actual confession. 

Much was made of the pubic hair samples found on the body at the Convent crime scene. The hairs were collected from Sister Tadea’s mouth, multiple other places on her body. At trial, an FBI agent testified that multiple pubic hairs found in the room “came from Johnny Garrett or another individual with the same racial and other physical characteristics.” The FBI agent went on to say that positive identification could not be made from hair samples, and can only be used as an indication of race and general physical characteristics. Remember that these were the same pubic hairs mentioned in earlier newspaper reports as black and black hair-like. The very hair samples, that were originally sent to the FBI, with a memo stating that based on the physical evidence, law enforcement was looking for a black or Cuban suspect. 

Prison Trusties were inmates who, as their name suggests, were seen as trusted members of the prison population. Trusties were given special privileges for keeping an eye and an ear on their fellow inmates and taking on authoritative roles within the prison. The system was much maligned and Trusties were permitted to carry out violence against other inmates as punishment for transgressions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the trusty system was eventually phased out in the 1980s. Lonnie Dale Watley was a trusty who was imprisoned at the Potter County Jail at the same time that Johnny Garrett was there. Lonnie Watley testified that although Garrett had initially shown reluctance in admitting to the Nun’s murder, he eventually confessed to the crime. 

When the trial concluded, the jury deliberated for under an hour, before returning with a guilty verdict. When the verdict was read Johnny Garrett screamed out “I didn’t kill her”. After that, he sat in his seat expressionless. When the jurors filed out of the courtroom Johnny Garrett and his mother June wrapped their arms around one another and cried. 

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At face value, you can see why a jury would find Johnny Frank Garrett guilty of Sister Tadea’s rape and murder. The fingerprints in the convent, the sperm, the confession, the prowling incident, Garrett's history and demeanor as well as the hair samples. 

Back in 1981, Texan jurors on death penalty cases were faced with a very hard choice. Life without parole was not an option, so Jurors had to either sentence a person that they had found guilty of murder to death or run the risk that the murderer that they had just passed judgement on may very well be released from prison at some point, where they could pose a very serious risk to the public. Their position was not an enviable one. Unfortunately for Johnny Garrett, his defence team in my opinion did a poor job of defending him. They did not hire a private investigator, even though they had the funds and ability to do so. They did not look into Johnny Garrett's story of being at the convent, the day before the murder, nor did they investigate whether Garrett had been to the convent many times in the past, as he had claimed. They didn’t object to one of Pathologist Ralph Erdman's work colleagues being selected as a juryman, nor did they object to the selection of Nathan Shackleford who was the nephew of Judge Jerry Shackleford. Judge Shackleford was one of the punishment witnesses who would be called to testify against Johnny Garrett if he was found guilty. Kolius and Jordan did not hire any experts, to counterargue the state’s experts,  even though they could have requested the funds to do so. They did not mention the other women who had been assaulted in Amarillo, including Narnie Box Bryson. The loss of the sperm sample was not countered and prior to the knowledge that the sample was lost, no requests were made to test the sample independently. Blood droplets found outside Sister Tadea’s room, believed to be from the killer, and fingerprints found in the bedroom belonging to a person or persons unknown were not brought up in court. In fact, the only people to testify on behalf of the defence were Johnny Garret’s family and Garrett himself. Perhaps most puzzling of all was that the attorneys did not present the alternate Cuban suspect angle. The Hispanic male who was involved in an altercation with the security guard, outside the convent on the night of the murder may as well have not existed. Apathetic seems to sum up Johnny Garrett’s trial representation in one word or perhaps a more Jaded person might describe it as flat-out dubious. 

At the punishment phase witnesses were presented to show the risk that Johnny Garrett represented to society. Both Judge Jerry Shackleford and Garrett’s former school teacher Carol Moore testified to Garrett’s dangerous nature and his proclivity for violence. 

After the conviction and penalty phase, Bishop L.T Maththisen made the statement that “I believe in respect for life everywhere, even that God-given life that is accused of snuffing out another. Instead of condemning the accused to die, we need to address ourselves, to the root causes of violence, such as the problems within our society”. Sister Viola Bacca said “ “ We don’t rejoice with that” referring to the death sentence “ It’s painful to have to hear that sentence”. Sister Bernice Noggler said “ I know that if sister Tadea were alive she would be the first one to forgive and pardon Johnny Frank Garrett. I am sure that she has done that, and therefore, I too forgive him, as do all of the sisters”. District attorney Danny Hill obviously had a completely different reaction to the sentence, said “ Johnny Frank Garrett is a perfect example of why the state legislature authorised the death penalty. For at least a year he thought about what it would be like to have sex with an old, dead woman. “  

Johnny Garrett’s own defence attorney Vill Kolies was quoted as saying that Johnny Frank Garrett is absolutely the perfect suspect for any crimes. Especially this crime. He has been in trouble before. He is dumb and has a low mentality. He is a thief and a burglar, a dope addict and an alcoholic. All of this at 17 years of age. Perhaps this was Kolies clumsy attempt at defending his client as he did go on to say “There’s no evidence connecting Johnny Frank Garrett to sister Tadea Benz. Don’t find him guilty because he was in the room. That is all they can prove.

After the trial, Johnny Garrett was sent to Huntsville to await his sentence. He was appointed an appellate lawyer named Bruce Sadler, who allegedly did little to help his client, before eventually dropping Garrett’s case and going to work for DA Danny Hill instead. Over the next 6 years, Garrett would have at least half a dozen different appellate lawyers. Despite all of the obvious red flags that had occurred during his trial, no new evidence was presented that may see Johnny Garrett’s case be given another look. 

On the 20th of November 1991, the Texas court of appeals denied Johnny Garretts application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus. One of the courts of appeals judges, Judge Clinton, filed a Dissenting opinion. I will read that dissenting opinion now, minus some of the legal jargon. 

 In my view, youth alone is a mitigating factor having significance beyond the pale of the special issues. Because applicant was sentenced by a jury given no means to prescribe, should it so choose, a sentence less than death based on that factor, his death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Applicant is entitled to a new trial. Because the Court does not grant that relief, I respectfully dissent. 

Applicant also complains that what is now former Article 37.071 operated effectively to preclude other evidence in mitigation that could have been, but was not presented at the punishment phase of his trial. Because evidence he now proffers as to his history of family violence and drug and alcohol abuse, and of his limited intelligence and possible brain damage could only, under Article 37.071, have operated to his detriment, he was prevented as a practical matter from producing that evidence at trial. Alternatively, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and adduce that evidence.

Applicant's trial attorneys arranged to have applicant examined prior to trial by a psychologist, Dr. Thomas Milton Cannon, Jr. Dr. Cannon performed a number of tests, including an I.Q. test, and concluded applicant had a low average intelligence. He also concluded applicant would represent a future danger to society. Cannon had not been made aware of any history of child abuse and was not privy to applicant's records from the Texas Youth Council. One of applicant's trial attorneys testified that a "tactical" decision was made not to utilize Dr. Cannon at trial because his testimony would only have been detrimental to applicant because "as applied to the issues, those issues in the jury charge, ... it would be more helpful to the State than it would be to Mr. Garrett." Significantly, applicant's other trial attorney testified at the writ hearing as follows:

"Q. It would be fair to say you weren't going to use [Dr. Cannon's testimony] because it was going to hurt the Defendant more than it was going to help him if the jury heard about it? A. That's correct. Yes, that's correct, yes. Q. If, in fact, there was not and I realise it's been seven years, but if, in fact, there was not any information you received from Dr. Cannon that would have been mitigating, then it really wouldn't have helped if the law had been different, allowing for mitigating evidence, would it?

I mean, if you don't have any to present, it doesn't help that that law allows that, does it?

A. [Counsel], I don't really know I don't know that we ever really thought of it in that light. What we were looking at is just on that one issue, you know, and it never dawned on me until the Franklin case came down, you know, that all of us who tried those capital cases should have been looking further than the three issues that were presented."[2]

I take this to mean that before the United States Supreme Court opinion in Franklin v. Lynaugh, applicant's trial counsel did not make "tactical" decisions that encompassed consideration of any mitigating evidence having relevance apart from or beyond the scope of Article 37.071 special issues. Counsel was simply unaware or unmindful of the Eighth Amendment principles that eventually led to the Supreme Court's holding in Penry. A failure to investigate under these circumstances surely amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Applicant's half-sister appeared at the writ hearing. She testified that applicant's mother had married five times, that his natural father had "disowned" him, and that applicant had suffered at the hands of a succession of stepfathers. One, the witness's natural father, would beat applicant with his fist and "rub[] his nose in the mess" when applicant soiled the bed. Another stepfather "put ... cigarettes out on [applicant's] behind." Yet another one sexually abused applicant. At the instigation *306 of the witness's father, applicant began drinking at the age of eleven or twelve. He drank frequently and also smoked marihuana. He told his half-sister he had also used "[c]rystal, LSD, acid, angel dust, speed." Once when drinking applicant had an iron gate fall down on him, striking him between the eyes, breaking his nose, and causing him to go into convulsions. Applicant believed there was a ghost in the house, and held conversations with his grandmother and aunt, both dead.[3]

Preparatory to the writ hearing applicant was examined by another psychologist, Dr. Windel Dickerson. Dr. Dickerson conducted an extensive review of applicant's family history and "the entire treatment record of his Texas Youth Council stay." He also reviewed the findings of a psychiatrist and professor from the New York University Medical Center, Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis, who had examined applicant pursuant to a study,[4] and the results of neurological testing conducted by Dr. Ellis Richardson. On *307 the basis of all this data Dr. Dickerson concluded that applicant suffered from schizophrenia, "probably paranoid schizophrenia;" and "chronic brain syndromef,]" which he described as "complications arising by behavior and thought and a lot of other things arising out of some kind of brain damage." He concluded that applicant "is one of the most profoundly and pervasively disabled people I've encountered in the last 25, 28 years of practice." Dickerson's own written evaluation of applicant suggests that applicant's condition could have been diagnosed as of the time of trial.[5]

.

Considering the nature of the mitigating evidence adduced at the writ hearing, and which would have been ascertainable at the time of trial, I believe there is a "reasonable probability" that is to say, "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome" that the jury might have found in its reasoned moral judgment that applicant deserved a sentence of less than death.. Even had counsel made a conscious and informed decision not to adduce this evidence, such as "Hobson's choice" amounts to no more than "a court-induced `tactical' decision to avoid helping the State satisfy its burden of proof." . As it is, counsel was not even cognizant of the choice he made by failing to investigate and adduce the evidence. Either way, the proper course is to vacate the sentence of death and remand the cause for a new trial.

... If the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment, the retributive goal of the criminal law is satisfied. And only if the defendant is aware that his death is approaching can he prepare himself for his passing. Accordingly, I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it." While a majority of the Supreme Court has not yet adopted this standard, we have found it to be a "persuasive" one. It seems to me a more than plausible argument can be made that if applicant truly believes his dead aunt will intervene to save him from the effects of an otherwise lethal injection, he is not likely to appreciate "that his death is approaching" so that he can "prepare himself for his passing." This Court is the ultimate factfinder in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings; the habeas court's findings are advisory only. Moreover, outside of the context of post-conviction habeas corpus under Article 11.-07, there is no other established procedure for making determinations of competency vel non to be executed in Texas. The upshot is that applicant has not had a final determination in the state forum as to whether his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment under Ford. Once again the Court abjures passing on a substantial question that is properly before it, apparently preferring to leave it for the federal courts to resolve on federal habeas corpus. For all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

An affidavit by Dr Dorothy Lewis read as follows;

"At the outset, it should be noted that Johnny Garrett is one of the most psychiatrically impaired inmates among the many that I have interviewed over the past twelve years. The evaluation of Johnny Garrett that I conducted revealed the following:

Johnny Garrett is chronically psychotic and has suffered a multiplicity of psychotic symptoms from childhood until the time of my evaluation. In fact, the prison records I reviewed indicated that prison doctors had diagnosed him as suffering from schizophrenia. He has long suffered from visual and auditory hallucinations. Indeed, during my interviews with Mr. Garrett, it soon became clear that he was, at times, hallucinating. When asked with whom he was communicating, he indicated that this was with an aunt who had died just after he had entered prison. He reported having first begun hearing voices and seeing things that were not there when he was in the fourth grade. He also exhibited a variety of peculiar beliefs and paranoid delusions and a strong history of paranoia that were indicative of psychosis. As a result of his psychosis, Johnny Garrett misperceives reality, often thinks he is being threatened and may lash out, in what he perceives to be self-defensive action, in violent and inappropriate ways.

It should also be noted that Mr. Garrett has a history of severe head injuries dating from early childhood. The most serious may have been when he fell from the roof of his house when he was approximately 10 years of age. There is a palpable scar in the right occipital region from this fall. He also suffered a serious motorcycle accident at approximately age 15, which may account for another scar in the left occipital region. Johnny Garrett also has a scar on the left frontal region where he was reportedly hit in the head with a large rock in childhood.

Perhaps as a result of these central nervous system injuries, Johnny Garrett is also seriously brain-damaged. He has long suffered from a multiplicity of symptoms consistent with central nervous system dysfunction, and a seizure disorder. In fact, he has a history of having experienced grand mal seizures, during which he has shaken, fallen, and has had incontinence of urine. He has also had episodes of behaviours, reported to him by others, for which his memory is impaired or entirely absent. These, and other symptoms (e.g. ol-factory hallucinations) suggested to the neurologist the possibility that Mr. Garrett also suffers from complex partial seizures.

Mr. Garrett's performance on numerous neuropsychological tests confirmed his significant brain damage. For example, on the Halstead-Reitan battery of tests, Mr. Garrett required 27 minutes to complete the Tactile Performance section. Completion time over 15 minutes is indicative of brain injury or significant central nervous system dysfunction. Moreover, on the Categories section, a test of the ability to conceptualise abstractly, Mr. Garrett made 91 errors. A score of more that [sic] 50 errors is indicative of brain damage or brain dysfunction. As stated, this brain damage was confirmed in the independent conclusions of a neurologist who evaluated Mr. Garrett.

Johnny Garrett also has a history of having witnessed and been the victim of extreme physical and sexual abuse. Mr. Garrett reportedly witnessed events in which his biological father was extremely brutal to his mother and his brother. Although Mr. Garrett reports that his father never abused him, several of his stepfathers were extremely physically and sexually abusive to Mr. Garrett. The reports of physical abuse are substantiated by the many scars on Mr. Garrett's body. For example, he has numerous scars on his back where one of his stepfathers reportedly beat him. He also reported to me having been placed on a hot stove when he was a young boy because he would not stop crying. In order to verify this assertion, I requested that Dr. Pincus, the neurologist, examine Mr. Garrett's buttocks. Dr. Pincus verified the presence of scars on his buttocks consistent with the history of having been seated on the burner of a stove. Thus, I believe Mr. Garrett has been honest in his reports of abuse.

Mr. Garrett also reported having been the victim of extreme sexual abuse at the hands of his family, especially his third stepfather, a Mr. Whiteside, and that man's friends. These events with the stepfather reportedly occurred around 1977. Mr. Garrett reported having been forced to perform acts of fellatio and having to submit to frequent acts of anal intercourse. He also reported that Mr. Whiteside and acquaintances of Mr. Whiteside (a man named "Kent" and another man named "Darryl") forced him to engage in sex with adult men while being filmed. He reportedly was also forced to engage in a sexual act with a dog. Mr. Garrett reported that in the course of making these pornographic films, he saw children as young as 7 years old being filmed having sex with adults. These kinds of extreme sexual abuse most probably contributed to the bizarre nature of his offense.

It is my professional opinion that Johnny Garrett's well-documented and apparently longstanding brain damage, his psychosis, coupled with his long history of having suffered brutal child abuse, severely impaired his ability to act deliberately and to control his conduct at or about the time of the event in question. The influence of drugs and/or alcohol would have further impaired his functioning. These vulnerabilities would also have impaired Johnny Garrett's ability to make mature judgments, reflect in advance upon the appropriateness of his conduct, understand the consequences of his behavior, or even have full awareness of his actions.

It is my opinion that the psychosis and neuropsychiatric deficits described would certainly have been relevant to issues of responsibility and/or mitigation during Johnny Garrett's trial. Further, the clinical data of these disorders that is documented in this affidavit could have been documented prior to Johnny Garrett's trial in 1982 in the course of a competent clinical evaluation."

In his conclusion Dr Dickerson stated; 

"All available sources concur that Mr. Garrett is a severely impaired individual. Emotional development was arrested at a very early age. Paranoid ideation, delusional thought and misinterpretation arising from neurological limitations would contribute significantly to a tendency to misread events and react out of his emotionally needy status. He appears to experience almost total alienation from all social and familial institutions and is impaired in thought, feeling and association to some degree in every significant sphere. It is relatively rare to see such pervasive and encompassing psychopathology. It is likely that many, if not most of these parameters could have been observed as he entered school. Certainly, some of them were or he would not have been placed in special classes. Most of these parameters are reflected either directly or indirectly in TYC records (which generally try to avoid pejorative labelling in the civil rights interest of the child) and could have been readily captured by competent examination at the time of the offense."

 In January 1992 the Supreme court reviewed Johnny Garrett’s case and it was rejected. Pope John Paul the II had written to the then Governor of Texas, Ann Richards to ask for Mercy on Johnny Garrett’s behalf. He wrote “ The Holy Father prays that the sentence will be commuted through your magnanimity and mercy. Your gesture of clemency would obviously be of special significance in promoting non-violence and in fostering the need for mutual respect and love in society”. The Nun’s at St Francis convent also petitioned the Governor, asking for clemency for Johnny Frank Garrett. In response to these interventions,  Governor Richards was quoted as saying “In this case there were a few questions in my mind, and then to be petitioned by the Sisters who were really the only family that this victim had, to grant this 30 day delay, it seemed the right thing to do”. 

 The then Governer of Texas, Ann Richards had stepped in and given Garrett a 30-day reprieve from execution, so that his case could be reviewed by the texas board of pardons and paroles. This was a very rare occurrence, with the last hearing having been granted the year before in 1987. The board had granted clemency to a total of 137 people in the past 55 years. At the hearing Johnny Garrett's lawyer, Warren Clark tried to plead Garrett's case for clemency, by talking about Garrett's abusive childhood. The evidence presented included a videotaped interview, where Johnny Garrett discussed disturbing elements of his childhood while talking about himself in the third person. Psychiatrist Dorothy Lewis testified that Garrett would go into a trance-like state when he talked about events in his childhood and that he had been sodomised and tortured as a child. Lewis was quoted as saying “ It’s a classic example of what occurs when early, relentless and intolerable torture occur.” Dorothy Lewis was viewed as an expert in multiple personality disorders, which we now refer to as 

Dissociative Identity Disorder. This condition, when presenting in adults, is believed to almost always stem from severe trauma in early childhood. Johnny Garrett’s defence team was not attempting to prove innocence to the board, but rather to show that Garrett had what they referred to as a dangerously split personality. 

Bishop Leroy Matthieson did his best to plead Johnny’s case. He had known Johnny for years and had witnessed what he called a very dysfunctional family life. In total 18 Teaxn Bishops as well as pope John Paul II, backed Johnny Garrett’s case for clemency. After hours of testimony, the board took half an hour to cast their votes. The result was a 17 to 0 vote against granting Johnny Garrett a reprieve. DA Danny Hill said “ We were here to protect the public. People aren’t even safe on death row from Johnny Frank Garrett''. This was in reference to multiple violent altercations that Garrett had been involved in while on death row, including that stabbing of another inmate, for which he received 5 years. Hill also said “ I would be the first to admit that he probably did not have the best functional home, and I’ll admit that no normal person-whatever normal may be would commit the kind of act he committed. But that does not excuse that act.” Johnny Garrett had exhausted all avenues of appeal. His only hope of survival was if the Supreme court stepped in on his behalf. 

Sister Tadea’s nephew Joseph Benz, who lived in Switzerland, gave his thoughts on the looming execution. Joseph did not want Johnny Garrett to be executed. He felt that killing Garrett was like committing the act of murder all over again. On the 5th of February, the same day that the parole board had rejected Garrett's bid for clemency, a press conference was held at St Matthews catholic church in Arlington. The press conference was headed by Texas bishop Joseph Delaney and other anti-death penalty speakers. Bishop Delaney said “The official church wants to be very clear on its position. We have a high stake in coming out against capital punishment. The principle here is the state taking human life, is simply perpetuating violence”. 

A man named Ken Robison gave a very human face to the plea for clemency. His son had been convicted of killing five people and was on death row. Ken Robinson said “ Our son was severely mentally ill and treated in several hospitals, but none of them treated him for longer than 30 days. There are other individuals who would not be on death row today if they would have received the treatment they needed”. 

On the 10th of February 1992, a warrant of execution was issued and signed by a judge of the 181st district court. The execution was scheduled to occur a week before sunrise on the 11th of February. In the early morning hours of Tuesday the 11th of February, 28-year-old Johnny Frank Garrett was executed by lethal injection. He was pronounced dead at 12:18 am. The US supreme court had rejected two last-minute stays of execution, the day before. A third appeal was also rejected immediately before his execution. 

Johnny Frank Garrett’s story was not over though. Although many of those in Amarillo would no doubt like to sweep this story under the rug, there were others who were determined to give meaning to a young man’s life and vindication to a human being he may have been wrongfully executed. The irony is not lost on me that Johnny Frank Garrett now receives more compassion and support in death than he ever did in life

As the 1980s had rolled on, Ralph Erdman, the pathologist who had conducted the autopsy on sister Tadea had become the main forensic pathologist in west Texas. For a 10 year period, Erdman dealt with autopsies across an incredible 48 counties. Then in 1992, the same year that Johnny Garrett was executed,  accusations were made against Erdmann and what was seen as his questionable practices. An investigation that would span 2 years was begun, and 300 of Erdmann’s autopsies would be analysed in the process. In 1994 Ralph Erdmann pleaded no contest to botching and faking autopsies. He surrendered his medical license and was given 10 years probation, 200 hours of community service and he had to repay close to $17,000 in autopsy fees. The fees were for autopsies that Erdmann had claimed to have conducted but when bodies were re-examined there was no sign of an autopsy ever having taken place. The fallout was huge. Cases spanning over a decade were called into question and there were accusations that Erdmann had performed “made to order” autopsies for prosecutors. Bodies were exhumed and 12 death row inmates appealed their convictions. By March of 1995, one of Erdman’s autopsies, which resulted in a death row conviction was overturned. Erdman had testified that the victim in question had died from the result of a homicidal beating when in actual fact the victim had died of a heart attack. The death row inmate’s conviction and death sentence was overturned by a state appeals court, and for that Erdmann was indicted on charges of perjury and evidence tampering. The 2-year investigation into Erdmann’s practices would uncover shocking findings when it was found that of the 300 autopsies studied that around 100 of them had issues. Negligent practices included the examination of a brain where no incisions had been made, the examination of a man’s spleen when the man had actually had his spleen removed years earlier. When the 41-year-old Levelland man was found dead in his home, a police officer had apparently made a casual remark, speculating that drugs were involved. When the autopsy later stated that the man had died of a cocaine overdose, his family was incensed, insisting that he never used drugs. When a family member read over the autopsy findings, they noted that the report listed the spleen as an internal organ that had been examined and weighed. The family member knew that the man’s spleen had been removed years earlier. The body was exhumed, but no autopsy incision marks were found on it. Another autopsy was then performed and it was found that the man had died of a heart attack. 

Then there was the ruling that a woman had choked on her own vomit when she had actually been smothered by a former lover. The killer would receive a life sentence and Erdmann would be ordered to pay the victim’s family $250,000 in compensation. There was the case where Ralph Erdmann somehow misplaced the head of a suspected homicide victim. Apart from the ethical implications surrounding his misplacement of a body part, the problem with the missing head was that it contained the bullets used to kill the victim. Without the bullets as evidence, the suspect had to be released. The death of a toddler 10 years prior had never sat right with the child’s father. Erdmann had concluded that the child died of Pneumonia. A decade after the child’s death the father sought help from a Texas ranger, who decided to investigate when he saw that Erdmann had conducted the autopsy. The child’s body was exhumed and armed with physical evidence, witness statements, and hospital photos the cause of death changed to strangulation. The boy’s Mother’s former partner was charged with his murder. 

There are so many heart-wrenching cases connected to Ralph Erdmann, probably none more heartbreaking than the father, who was charged with killing his young son. The man spent 4 months in prison until it was proved that the child died from an accidental drowning rather than Erdmann’s ruling of homicide. 

A former Dallas County assistant medical examiner Linda Norton said that Erdmann routinely performs made-to-order autopsies that support a police version of the story. She went on to say that some of Erdmann’s findings are so wrong as to be an insult to the intelligence of an average human being. Don Hurley, a Lubbock lawyer who was appealing a murder case in which he said Dr. Erdmann falsified a toxicology report, said, "I believe as I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow that there was a conspiracy between the prosecution and Erdmann to say whatever was necessary to get a conviction, and I don't have any doubt that there is a cover-up now." "There are clear indications," Mr. Turner said, "that a number of people in law enforcement considered him weird and questioned his competence because he regularly messed up evidence and he did strange things like handing people organs to hold. But no one blew the whistle.

The following information is taken from the death penalty information center.  The use of the term mental retardation is obviously an archaic term, but I am going to read it as it was the accurate terminology used when the Supreme court made the rulings I am about to mention. 

On June 20th, 2002 the supreme court ruled that individuals with a mental disability would no longer be able to be sentenced to death. The reasoning was that it was now seen as a violation of the eighth amendment ban on cruel unusual punishment to execute death row inmates with mental retardation. This decision was said to reflect the national consensus. 

13 years earlier in 1989, the supreme court had upheld the constitutionality of executing a person with a mental disability. The court said that the issue of mental retardation should be addressed as a mitigating factor, which could be considered by the jury at sentencing. Back in 1989, the court felt that a national consensus had not developed against executing those with mental retardation. 

It should be mentioned that prior to the 1989 ruling only Maryland and Georgia had laws against the execution of individuals with mental disabilities. Between 1989 and the 2002 rulings 16 other states, as well as the federal government, had already enacted laws that prohibited the execution of those with mental disabilities. Texas was not one of these states. 

In 2004, Johnny Garrett's family hired a lawyer named Jesse Quackenbush.  It had been 12 years since Johnny Garrett’s execution, and his mother Charlotte Cameron was requesting post-conviction DNA testing, offering the State complete immunity in the wrongful execution of her son. Charlotte Cameron stated that her only intent was to clear Johnny's name. It didn’t take long for letters to arrive from both The Potter County District attorney's office and the city of Amarillo. Her claim was called frivolous and one of the letters stated that no evidence on the case had been held by the city of Amarillo in a long time. Furthermore, Charlotte Cameron was threatened with a counterclaim for damages and sanctions if she persisted with her claim. 

In 2005 the supreme court ruled that juveniles aged under 18 when they committed their crimes could no longer be executed. The Supreme court said that the executions constituted an 8th amendment violation as they were cruel and unusual punishment.  As of February 28, 2005, the day before Roper v. Simmons was decided, 71 persons were on death row for juvenile crimes. These 71 condemned juvenile offenders constituted about 2% of the total death row population of 3,471. Although all were ages 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes, their ages range from 18 to 43 when Roper was decided. They were under death sentences in 12 different states and had been on death row from 6 months to 24 years. Texas had by far the largest death row for juvenile offenders, holding 29 (41%) of the national total of 71 juvenile offenders.

In 2008 Jesse Quackenbush released a documentary about Johnny Garrett's case. The documentary is called The Last Word and it brings to light some extremely damning evidence about Garrett's conviction. Perhaps the most shocking information comes from a Cuban man, who was acquainted with Fernando Flores, law enforcement's original suspect in the Tadea Benz Murder. 

Leoncio Rueda was one of a group of Cuban refugees, who arrived in the US during the Mariel boatlift. Rudea found himself in Amarillo in 1981. He was a friend and sometimes a roommate of Fernando Fellipe Flores. By 2003 Leoncio Rueda had found himself in a New Mexico prison, serving time for…….Earlier that year a detective in Potter County Texas had looked into the Narnie Box Bryson murder, from 22 years earlier. The detective had sent a bloodied bedsheet to be analysed for DNA. In March 2004 the DNA found on the bedsheet was put through Codis and ran against persons of interest in the original investigation. The DNA came back as a match to Leoncio Rueda, and a  warrant was issued by the Potter County DA’s office on March 24th, charging Rueda with murder. He was quickly extradited back to Texas. 

Rueda had been a person of interest back in July 1981. He and a number of other Cuban nationals had been interviewed and had hair and blood samples taken. Despite this, law enforcement had been unable to tie him to Narnie’s rape and murder. Once Rueda had been safely extradited back to Amarillo he was offered a deal. The deal was that Rueda would receive a 45-year sentence with the possibility of parole and the added bonus of no further charges. Rueda took the deal and gave a full confession. The question is why? Why did Potter county offer Rueda a deal in the first place? Even though Rueda was known to live in Amarillo in 1981, and even though law enforcement had irrefutable evidence from the crime scene, in the form of his DNA. There was also the fact that Rueda had already committed rape and murder in his homeland of Cuba, before his arrival in the US. 

 No doubt it was saving Potter county a lot of money when they didn’t have to go to the expense of a trial. The question is why was part of his deal no further charges? Did the potter county DA believe that other cases out of Amarillo were linked to Leoncio Rueda? There had been other sexual assaults in Amarillo in the year that Narnie Box Bryson was raped and murdered, but as vile as those other crimes were, they weren’t murder. Could it be that the county did not want to take the chance that another rape and murder that was committed in 1981, a crime that was continuously compared by police and former DA Danny Hill to that of Narnie Box Bryson, a crime for which a 17-year-old boy was arrested and eventually executed for,  could be looked at again, its outcome found lacking? What DNA could possibly be found if the physical evidence from Sister Tadea’s crime scene was sent away to be thoroughly analysed? This brings us to the question, does this evidence still exist? A police report from 1981 stated that two weeks after the murder of Narnie C. Bryson Leoncio Perez Rueda, 30, was found prowling around a house a short distance from the home of Mrs Bryson. The report appeared to indicate that his clothing was off and that he intended to enter the house. He had also admitted to looking into the windows of many houses in the same area. When interviewed for the last word documentary, shortly after his extradition, Leoncio Rudea had some interesting things to say. First Rueda blamed the death of Narnie Box Bryson on his friend Fernando Flores.  Then when he was asked about the murder of Sister Tadea, Rudea claimed that his friend Fernando Flores was involved. Rudea said that Flores had told him that he had attacked and beaten a Nun, leaving her in a very bad state.  Rudea felt that although his friend didn’t specifically mention the sexual assault, that it was still implied. Rudea said that he was unaware that the attack by his friend had resulted in the Nun’s death. Perhaps the most interesting part of the interview was when Leoncio Rudea talked about a white t-shirt left at the crime scene. Leoncio said that the t-shirt belonged to him after it had been gifted to him by Nuns at the St Francis convent, a convent that Rudea had attended multiple times. From his statement, it appeared that Rueda specifically said that the t-shirt was given to him by Sister Tadea herself. It would be interesting to know whether the nuns were assigned a refugee to work one on one and whether Leoncio Rudea was one of Sister Tadea’s charges. While being interviewed Rudea also mentioned that police had shown him a photo of the white t-shirt found at the convent crime scene, and that he identified it as belonging to him. The question is, when did police show Rudea a picture of the white t-shirt? Was it when he was originally questioned in 1981? Or was it when he was arrested for Narnie Box Bryson’s murder in 2004? If it was shown to him in 2004, then we have to ask why? Johnny Frank Garrett had already been convicted and executed over a decade earlier for the crime. If Rudea was shown the picture in 2004 why would he even admit to owning a t-shirt that he seemed to imply was gifted to him by Sister Tadea, unless he was concerned that his DNA would be on it? Wanting to create a cover story for why his DNA was on that white t-shirt is the only plausible reason for why he would claim ownership of it decades later. In that scenario it would make sense that he blamed Fernando Flores for the crime, giving the explanation that involved his friend borrowing his shirt and then going on to commit a crime while wearing it. 

Jesse Quackenbushe's documentary also brought to light some more interesting information. Bishop Leroy T Mathison served as the bishop of  Amarillo for 17 years. Bishop Matthison had known Johnny as a child and teenager, the same man who fought for Johnny’s clemency divulged what could be a key piece of the puzzle. Over the years some of the Sisters told the Bishop that they had known Johnny quite well and he would go to the convent and visit with the nuns on a regular basis.  They said that he admired the pictures and statues at the convent, and would often pick objects up to look at them. It sounded as though the convent was a sanctuary for Johnny Garrett. A place that he could go where people treated him kindly and were fond of him. Perhaps the most troubling part of the story was when the sisters had told Bishop Mathieson that Johnny Garrett had helped them to move furniture in and out of the convent and onto a moving truck. In the process he was in all of the Sister’s bedrooms, touching multiple pieces of furniture. This occurred just before Sister Tadea’s murder. Bishop Leroy Matthison claimed that neither he nor any of the nuns were ever questioned about Johnny’s visits to the convent. One of Garrett's lawyers was asked about his knowledge of these events. Not surprisingly neither he nor his counterpart had discovered this information before the original trial. It was information that could have been easily uncovered if the defence team had bothered to conduct routine interviews. It was also information that could have put explained Johnny’s fingerprints at the crime scene prior to the murder of sister Tadea. 

For years hair and bite mark evidence has been viewed by many as forms of junk science. Perhaps that is too harsh a criticism for something that is physical evidence, but when one takes into account the fact that the physical evidence is examined and assessed by a human being, then there is obviously a large margin for error to occur. In 2015 the department of justice, the FBI, the innocence project, and the national association of criminal defence lawyers were involved in the Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review. The review  found that decades of forensic hair analysis prior to 1999, and used as evidence at criminal trials, was wrong. So wrong in fact that at least 90 percent of trial transcripts analysed by the FBI were found to have contained inaccurate statements. Peter Nufield who was the co-director of the innocence project was quoted as saying that “These findings confirm that FBI microscopic hair analysts committed widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecutions’ case,” 

“While the FBI and DOJ are to be commended for bringing these errors to light and notifying many of the people adversely affected, this epic miscarriage of justice calls for a rigorous review to determine how this started almost four decades ago and why it took so long to come to light. By 2015 the review had examined around 500 cases, with probably thousands more still to review. Of the 500 cases, 35 of them were death penalty cases. Of these 35 33 were found to have contained errors. At the time of these findings, 9 of the prisoners had been executed. In the years since 1999, the FBI only used mitochondrial and microscopic hair evidence. 

In 2016 a Horror film was made based loosely on Johnny Frank Garrett's case. It was titled “last word” not to be confused with the 2008 documentary “the last word”. The movie’s main premise focuses on Garrett’s execution and an alleged letter that he wrote, where he put a curse on all of those who were responsible for his conviction and death. Although I have never seen evidence that this letter ever existed, reference was also briefly made to its existence in Jesse Quackanbushe’s documentary. After Johnny Garrett’s execution, a large number of people connected to the case and their loved ones died premature deaths, to car accidents, cancer, and suicide. the latter of which took the life of District attorney Danny Hill in 1995. Perhaps though, instead of a supernatural revenge that Johnny Garrett was enacting after his death, the deaths were simply a result of Cancer clusters, mental health issues, and sheer bad luck. 

Moore v. Texas

On March 28, 2017, in Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s standard for evaluating intellectual disability in death penalty cases, calling the state’s approach to reviewing an individual’s deficits in adaptive functioning an “outlier” that, “[b]y design and in operation, … create[s] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” The Court granted relief to Petitioner Bobby James Moore, holding that Texas’ use of non-scientific factors to determine whether a person is ineligible for the death penalty because of intellectual disability is “irreconcilable” with the Court’s precedent and with the Eighth Amendment. The Court said that although states have discretion in how they enforce the constitutional prohibition against applying the death penalty to persons who are intellectually disabled, that discretion is not “unfettered.” When determining whether someone is intellectually disabled, the Court rejected Texas’ approach because it is not “informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.” Texas adopted criteria for determining intellectual disability that critics and mental health advocates say would merely perpetuate stereotypes and that had no basis in the medical literature. For example, the fact-finder must consider whether people who knew the person during childhood, such as family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities, “th[ought] he was mentally retarded.” Other questions also included whether he formulated plans, whether his conduct responsive to external stimuli is rational and appropriate, whether he responds coherently and rationally in response to questions, and whether he could lie in his own or others’ interests. Some of the factors are based upon the characteristics of the fictional character Lennie Smalls from John Steinbeck’s novel, Of Mice and Men. The Supreme Court found that this was an unscientific “invention” of the Texas court that was “untied to any acknowledged source” and that it lacked support from “any authority, medical or judicial.”

In 2019 an article from the Texas tribune addressed the fact that the state of Texas still did not have a law addressing intellectual disability and the death penalty.

In conclusion, I am going to list some of the questionable aspects and practices in this case. Keep in mind that my list is not exhaustive. These are just some of the notes that I jotted down during my research.

• Back in 1981 Amarillo’s law enforcement was under immense pressure to win back positive public opinion by solving serious crimes quickly and efficiently. At the time they were also wanting to create a full-time homicide squad. 

• Why did it take over a week for the patrolman to suddenly remember seeing Johnny Garrett running from the convent, earlier on the night of Sister Tadea’s murder? Also, if Garrett looked so suspicious that night that a neighbour had called police to investigate, and said police basically chased him to his home, why did they just leave him to go inside? Why wouldn’t that have at least given him a talking to? 

• Knowing that Johnny Garrett was seen running from the direction of the convent, earlier on the night of the murder, and knowing that he was chased by police back to his home. Would a spooked Johnny Garrett still go on to commit the crime that night? Why would the policemen who had been called out by Johnny's neighbour not have spoken to Johnny Garrett once they finally caught up with him? It seems odd that police would just drive off without questioning him first. 

• The last Word documentary shows crime scene photos taken at the convent. One of the photos shows droplets of blood on the floor of the convent. Another photo shows a blood smear on the interior of the first-floor fire exit door. The blood on the floor was believed to have come from the killer. In the prosecution’s version of events, the killer left the way he had come in, through the broken recreation room window. The blood on the fire exit door seems to indicate otherwise. 

• Why does Leoncio Rudea try to link the rape and murder of sister Tadea to his friend in the first place? It is bizarre that instead of denying all knowledge in the case, he gives a very vivid account of a memory from 25 years earlier where his friend implicated himself in the crime. It is also very interesting that he has such a clear memory of a plain white T-shirt that was in his possession a quarter of a century ago. 

• Johnny Frank Garrett’s story that his palm and fingerprints must have been left behind on sister Tadea’s headboard, when he reached for a crucifix situated on the wall, over her bed was discounted. A Nun had apparently told law enforcement that there was no crucifix hanging above Sister Tadea’s bed. And yet, when I watched the last word documentary I clearly saw that there was a large crucifix hanging above Sister Tadea’s bed. The placing of Garrett’s left palm print on the headboard could be accurate if he held onto the headboard with his left hand and reached for the crucifix with his right. 

• While the forgecraft steak knife found in the driveway matched others found at the Garrett home in wear and appearance, no fingerprints were taken from the knife itself. I also wonder if there was actually a knife missing from the set, as I never saw this mentioned.

• The shoe impressions underneath the entry point window did not match any of Johnny Garrett’s shoes. From what I can see the impressions are a men's US size 11. What was Johnny Garrett’s shoe size? 

• And still on the subject of shoes, None of Johnny Garrett’s shoes had the same sole as the shoe print found at the crime scene, and none of his shoes had glass from the broken window, embedded in their soles. 

• Police photos show that Johnny Garrett’s home did not look clean and well kept. He had at least two dogs, and when his clothes were checked there was pet hair all over them. The fact that no pet hair was found at the Sister Tadea crime scene seems unlikely. In fact, Garrett’s clothing had no blood on them when tested by the FBI and no pet hairs or fibers from his home were found in samples that were collected at the crime scene. 

• Prison Trusty Lonnie …..testimony was very simplistic and vague. There was no ground breaking information gleaned from his alleged conversations with Johnny Garrett while they were in jail together. All his testimony did was affirm the police theory that Johnny Garrett was guilty. 

• I find the wording of Garrett’s alleged confession problematic. The confession stated “I heard that the Nun’s kept nice stereos in their rooms”. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but to me It doesn’t ring true, because Johnny Garrett had been in all of the Nun’s rooms at different times, when he helped move the furniture. He would have known exactly what was on display in the bedrooms. He didn’t have to hear anything from anyone about the contents of those rooms. And along the same lines, it was common knowledge that Johnny was taken with religious icons at the convent. His story about reaching for a crucifix, he was attempting to steal, before being scared off by a noise seems plausible. 

• I also don’t believe that it would be strange for Johnny Garrett to come to the convent to steal in the middle of the day. He had been to the convent on multiple occasions and may have seen that the nuns would be distracted and grouped in the one area while they ate lunch, thus giving him access to the bedrooms. 

• Last of all, I would love to know if the Amarillo police department still has any physical evidence from the case in storage. 

This case stirs up a lot of issues and I am sure that people will be divided over whether they believe that Johnny Frank Garrett was guilty or innocent. This case bothers me on so many levels and I don’t think I have ever researched a case where the question of guilt or innocence is overshadowed by issues that seem just as important. Let me know what you think on crime valley’s discussion page on Facebook. 

I hope that you enjoyed listening to today's installment. Before you go I would like to let you know that I am offering 3 listeners choice podcast episode’s for the months of June, July, and August. If you would like to have me cover your chosen case, then all you need to do is complete a quick two-stage process. The first step is to leave me a review on your favourite podcast platform or use the link https://followthepodcast.com/Crimevalley   ……….. The second step is to send me a dm at the crime valley podcast on either Instagram or Facebook or alternatively send me an email at Crimevalleypodcast@yahoo.com. In the message or email, you need to provide the name that you left the review under and tell me which case you would like me to cover. It’s that simple. You have until April 30th, 2022 to enter. If your name is chosen in the random draw, then I will notify you and let you know when your chosen case will be featured in either a June, July, or August episode. I will also give you a shout-out acknowledgment at the beginning of that episode. All of the details will be listed in the show notes and on Crime Valley’s social media pages. 

Thanks for listening to today’s episode. Have a great day. Stay safe, stay informed and I will meet you next time in Crime Valley.