Made on Behalf of Capital Defendants and Defendants Facing Life Without the Possibility of Parole (LWOP) – Counsel wishing to see any of the listed videos will be (a) informed of where a copy of the video can be obtained, (b) sent a DVD of the video without charge, or (c) directed to the address where we have made a copy of the video available online.

1. Capital Defendants
   1. Robert Alton Harris (Calif.)
   2. Manuel Pina Babbitt (Calif.)
   3. Abu Ali Abdur Rahman (Tenn.)
   4. Thomas Miller-El (Tex.)
   5. James Vernon Allridge, III (Tex.)
   6. Wanda Jean Allen (Okla.) (the footage from the clemency video was completely incorporated into the feature length-documentary “The Execution of Wanda Jean”)
   7. Jack Dale Walker (Okla.)
   8. Marilyn Kay Plantz (Okla.)
   9. John Spirko (Ohio)
   10. John Dennis Daniels (N.C.)
   11. Anthony Apavovitch (Ohio)
   12. Stanley (“Tookie”) Williams (Calif.)
   13. Vernon Evans, Jr. (Md.)
   14. Kevin Stanford (Ky.)
   15. Gary Graham (Shaka Sankofa) (Tex.)
   16. Juan Garza (U.S.)
   17. Philip Workman (Tenn.)
   18. Louis Joe Truesdale, Jr. (S.C.)
   19. Richard Charles Johnson (S.C.)
   20. Andrew (“Andy”) Lavern Smith (S.C.)
   21. Sylvester Louis Adams (S.C.)
   22. Dominique Jerome Green (Tex.)
   23. Scott Panetti (Tex.)
2. Groups of Lifers
   1. The Framingham 8 (Mass.) (“Defending Our Lives” won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short)
   2. Mich. Battered Prisoners (featured in the feature-length documentary “From One Prison”)
   3. The Norfolk Four (Va.)
3. Individual Lifers
   1. Patsy Kelly Jarrett (N.Y.) (clemency video was excerpted from the Frontline 2 documentary “The Plea”)
   2. Leonard Peltier (essentially the message of the documentary feature “Incident at Oglala”)
   3. Dylcia Pagan (essentially the message of the documentary “The Double Life of Ernesto Gomez Gomez” which focuses on her son)
4. Defendants Charged with Drug Offenses
   1. Darryl Best (N.Y.)

Length of Video

Relevant Dates

• Date of the video
• Date of execution if scheduled

Audience Specifically Addressed

• State’s Governor
• Pardon Board
• Victims/Survivors
• Defendant’s Family Members
• Defendant’s Community
• Activists
• Policymakers
• Broadcasters
• General public (request is made that citizens support the clemency petition)
• Target audience is ambiguous/unknown (narrative is aimed at no specific audience)

Defendant’s Demographic Characteristics and Background as Revealed in Video

• Gender
• Race/Ethnicity
• Age at time of video (either a specific age or within these categories: <18, 18-25, 25-40, 40-60, 60+)
• Age at the time of the crime
• Education level
• Prior/Other felony convictions
• State convicted in

Victim Characteristics as Revealed in Video

• Gender
• Race/Ethnicity
• Age
• Relationship to defendant
• Stranger to defendant

Primary Narrative Type

• Mitigating Circumstances
• Rehabilitation
• Innocence
• Procedural Irregularities
• Sentencing Inequity

Secondary Narrative Type

• Mitigating Circumstances
• Rehabilitation
• Remorse and Mercy
• Innocence
• Procedural Irregularities
• Sentencing Inequity
• Combination
• None

Mitigating Circumstances Narrative Features

• Mental Retardation
• Mental Illness
• Traumatized Childhood
• Sexual abuse as a child
• Specific stories of childhood abuse provided
• Youth invoked
• Elderly status invoked
• Event in childhood analogized to the crime
• Victim was culpable to some degree
• Drug abuse/alcoholism
• Treatment sought for substance abuse, but ineffective
• Offenses against the defendant during incarceration
• Introduction of evidence of mitigating circumstances denied at trial

Rehabilitation Narrative Features

• Person has “changed”
• Religious Rehabilitation
• Specific religion given
• Rehabilitation without religion
• Third parties confirm that the defendant has changed
• Good deeds in prison enumerated
• Worse world without them (others say it would be)
• Projection that the defendant will continue performing good deeds if allowed to live
• Comparison of world if defendant was allowed to live versus killed

Remorse and Mercy Narrative Features

• Admission of guilt or responsibility for the crime
• Expression of remorse
• Apology or expression of sympathy for the victim and victim’s loved ones
• Plea for mercy by loved ones
• Theoretical challenge to retributive theory of justice
• Legal theory of the role of clemency included
• Challenge to the death penalty in general (as inhumane, immoral, unconstitutional, etc.)
• Emphasizes that the governor has control over the life of an individual

Innocence Narrative Features

• Explanation of legal role of clemency as a check on judicial mistakes
• Witnesses Speak
• Problem with trial
• Jurors acknowledge problem in trial
• New evidence of innocence has arisen
• Problem after Trial
• No recourse beyond clemency
• What problems occurred and why are explained
• No reason why the defendant is innocent provided in video

Procedural Irregularities Narrative Features

• Explanation of how mistake impacted trial
• Emphasis on Clemency as a Final Option
• Specific examples of trial irregularities given
• Police Impropriety
• Specific reasons why defendant is innocent
• Jury Discrimination
• Discrimination in jury selection
• Prosecutorial abuse
• Evidence tampering

Sentencing Inequity Narrative Features

• Sentence of accomplice provided
• Accomplice was more culpable than defendant
• Life without parole was unavailable option at time of sentencing
• Similar case(s) with lighter sentence provided
• Jurors claim they would have sentenced differently
• Compare sentence to an accomplice in the crime
• Compare sentence to others with similar crimes

General Storytelling Techniques

• Use of Narrator-identified or unidentified
• Use of titlecards (text on screen)
• Use of interviews
• Defendant appears
• Defendant appears confined by wire or glass
• Defendant speaks but does not appear
• Defendant’s absence is explained
• Family Members speak
• Expert Witnesses speak
• Teachers speak
• Social Workers/Advocates speak
• Ministers/Spiritual Advisors speak
• Fellow Inmates speak
• Pen Pals speak
• Friends speak
• Prison officials/employees speak
• Non-acquaintances speak (people the
• defendant has not really interacted with)
• Victim’s loved ones speak
• Interviewer heard questioning people
• Ending with call to action or other advocacy goals for audience

Visual Elements

• Images of death chamber or house
• Images of prison
• Images of the crime scene and other pertinent locations
• Images/clips of evidence
• Images/clips associated with mitigating circumstances
• Images of defendant before the crime
• Images of defendant during trial
• Images of defendant in prison
• Images of defendant’s family
• Images of the victim
• Images of pertinent documents
• News and archival footage

Audio or Sound Elements

• Narration
• No one speaks on behalf of defendant
• A few people speak on behalf of defendant (no more than 6)
• Many people speak on behalf of the defendant (more than 6)
• Background music
• Synchronous sound
• Sound effects

Expressions of Emotions

• 1 or more persons (other than defendant) cries
• Defendant cries
• Children speak on behalf of defendant
• People beg for clemency
• Impromptu interviews
• People speak from pre-written segments
• Portrayal of the death penalty process

Production responsibilities of lawyers

• Scriptwriter
• Interviewer
• Narrator
• Producer
• Cinematographer
• Editor

Length of production time

Approximate cost of production

Distribution targets

• Governor
• Pardoning authority
• Lawmakers and Policymakers
• General public

Media deployed

• Internet
• Broadcast media
• Private screenings
• Public screenings
• Disk duplication and distribution

Approximate cost of distribution

Response or action requested

• Petition or letter writing
• Donations
• Marches or rallies

Impact

• Defendant’s case
• Defendant
• Victim or victim’s survivors
• Defendant’s family and friends

Outcome of case

• Date of execution
• Date of commutation
• Current status

The video segments available online provide general information about the law, not legal advice which is the application of the law to the specific circumstances of a particular individual. Although we have attempted to provide information that is accurate and useful, you should know that the law may differ from county to county and is subject to different interpretations. If you have a question about how the law applies to you, you are strongly advised to seek legal advice from a lawyer or an advocate authorized to provide legal assistance in Pennsylvania.