A Texas court has halted the execution of a man who was scheduled to die for a 1996 fatal robbery where he didn’t pull the trigger.
Advertisement
The role of Grigson, a forensic scientist who appeared for the prosecution, was a key factor in the latest ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Wood is scheduled to die by lethal injection Wednesday.
Wood was in a auto outside when his friend, Daniel Reneau, shot dead the 31-year-old store worker.
The case has drawn highly unusual opposition from Republican lawmakers.
Wood’s case has captured attention across the US over his culpability in the shooting of a convenience store clerk, his mental competence and criticism surrounding his original trial.
The decision by the Texas appeals court to delay the execution was released in a two-page opinion, in which Wood’s sentence of execution by lethal injection was described as based on the lies and sketchy science of now-discredited psychiatrist Dr. James Grigson, who, according to WFAA, is also known by the moniker “Dr. Death” because of how often he testifies in support of execution in capital murder cases.
But in Texas, sitting in that truck and taking part in the robbery was enough to get Wood convicted of murder and onto death row.
In 2008, Wood’s execution was postponed for the first time, when his defense team cited his learning disability and an IQ of 80, which is lower than the average 100. Reneau was executed in 2002.
Mr Tyler added: “I am not aware of a case where a person has been executed with so minimal culpability and with such little participation in the event”. Wood, who was outside the building when it happened and who had no criminal history. Recently, conservative state representatives have spoken out and written letters to the parole board in hopes of saving Wood’s life. – Texas Department of Criminal Justice handout pic via ReutersWood, who turned 43 yesterday, was sentenced to death under a state law that says anyone involved in a criminal plot resulting in death is equally responsible regardless of actual involvement or intent. Wood, that Mr. Wood would be criminally violent in the future was unfair…. “The jurors no longer support a death sentence”. He instead pointed to concerns about Wood’s mental competency and the handling of his trial.
Advertisement
However, tests showed Wood was competent.
