Determined to secure justice for the Angola 3, today Amnesty will simultaneously launch the second stage of their campaign demanding Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace’s immediate release from solitary confinement. Amnesty’s new online petition is calling for James M. LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to account for his comments that Herman and Albert were being kept in solitary to protect prison employees, other inmates and visitors. Amnesty asks “where’s the evidence?”
We thank all of our supporters who signed the earlier petition to Governor Jindal and now ask you to please take action by signing the new petition to Secretary LeBlanc.
*Keep updated by visiting our brand new Free All The Angola 3 facebook page.
USA: Crucial Hearing Could See Angola 3′s Albert Woodfox Freed
(Posted by Amnesty International on May 28 2012)
40 years in solitary confinement could end
A three-day evidentiary hearing into a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson prior to the 1998 retrial of Albert Woodfox is due to begin in a federal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana tomorrow (29 May).
A ruling in his favour could result in Albert Woodfox’s conviction being overturned for the third time, and could secure his release from prison after being held in solitary confinement for 40 years.
Albert Woodfox was convicted in 1973 – along with a second prisoner, Herman Wallace – of the 1972 murder of a prison guard called Brent Miller. Both men, who have vigorously denied involvement in the crime, were placed in solitary confinement in Closed Cell Restriction at Louisiana State Penitentiary (known as Angola prison). A third man, Robert King, who was accused of a different crime, was also held in these conditions and the three were jointly known as the “Angola 3″. King was released in 2001 after serving 29 years in solitary.
Meanwhile, Woodfox’s conviction was overturned in 1992, but he was re-indicted and convicted again at a 1998 trial. In 2008, a federal District Court judge ruled that Woodfox had been denied his right to adequate assistance of counsel at his 1998 retrial and ordered the state to re-try or release him. The District Court had also found that his lawyers had made a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to the selection of the grand jury foreperson, and that this warranted a federal evidentiary hearing to give the state an opportunity to rebut the claim. The state appealed against the District Court order for a retrial and in June 2010 a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the decision. The case was remanded to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing on the grand jury discrimination claim: it is this hearing that is about to begin.
The foreperson of the grand jury that indicted Albert Woodfox for his 1998 retrial was white. Woodfox’s lawyers have presented evidence of the consistent under-representation of African Americans serving as grand jury forepersons compared to their numbers in the general population of the parish in which Albert Woodfox, who is himself African American, was tried.
Amnesty International considers the issue of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson to be a significant one. The right to trial, in full equality and free from discrimination, before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal lies at the heart of due process of law and requires that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. Actual impartiality and appearance of impartiality are both fundamental for maintaining respect for the administration of justice. The organisation will continue to monitor developments in this case.
Take Action and Ask the Department of Corrections –Where’s the Evidence?
Despite the overwhelming number of signatures in the petition, and the presence of representatives from local and national organizations as well as political figures, Governor Jindal refused to meet with the delegation, and referred the issue to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. The Secretary of the Department, James M. LeBlanc, in turn justified their continued placement in CCR by stating that they were a danger to prison employees, other inmates and visitors. He also denied that conditions for the men were inhumane.
After years of working on the case, Amnesty International is not aware of ANY evidence to suggest that the men are a danger to themselves or to others. Prison records show that neither man has committed any serious disciplinary infraction for decades nor do the prison mental health records demonstrate that they pose a threat to themselves or others.
Amnesty International is firm in its belief that conditions for the men in CCR – 23 hour cellular confinement in stark, tiny cells; limited access to books, newspapers and TV; no opportunities for mental stimulation, work and education; occasional visits from friends and family and limited telephone calls – amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Hold Secretary LeBlanc to account and add your voice to the 67,000 others to demand that the men be removed from long term isolation.
(full text of online petition below)
On 17 April 2012, you issued a statement that Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace are held separately from other prisoners to protect prison employees, other inmates and visitors. Where is the evidence to back up this statement?
Records show that neither man has committed any serious disciplinary infraction for decades. Prison mental health records indicate that the men pose no threat to themselves or to others.
In a recent report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture condemned prolonged isolation as amounting to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. He refers to the case of Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace in his report.
Along with over 67,000 others who signed a petition to Governor Jindal, I urge you to remove Albert and Herman from isolation.