Stephen Anderson was convicted in the shooting death of Elizabeth Lyman and sentenced to death in San Bernardino, California. In May 1980, Mr. Anderson was a homeless wanderer who had been riding the rails and ended up in Bloomington, California. On the evening of May 25, 1980, Mr. Anderson drank two half-pints of vodka. According to the uncontradicted evidence, Mr. Anderson then broke into Mrs. Lyman's house on Memorial Day weekend believing it was unoccupied, was startled by a noise in the house, and fired in the dark, almost instantly killing Mrs. Lyman. Thereafter, Mr. Anderson turned on the lights, opened up the drapes, and waited for about three hours until sheriff's deputies arrested him. He confessed to and accepted responsibility for Mrs. Lyman's death.

The Lyman burglary-homicide was a rather ordinary felony murder that, according to the prosecutor, by itself was not the type of offense that would automatically have been charged as a capital case. (Ex. 32 at 1, 17.) The deficient performance by Mr. Anderson's trial counsel, S. Donald Ames, has raised serious doubt about the appropriateness of the imposition of the ultimate penalty for Anderson. (Ex. 73, Anderson v. Calderon (9th Cir. 12/21/01) __ F.3d __, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 27082 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing).) At the guilt phase, Mr. Ames presented no defense whatsoever. At the penalty phase retrial,1 the jury never heard relevant and compelling evidence in mitigation that it should have heard. The jury returned a death verdict after 21 days of deliberation. Stephen Anderson was sentenced to death on February 11, 1986. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on December 27, 1990. It is with great humility that Mr. Anderson now asks that he be granted clemency. There are compelling grounds for sparing Mr. Anderson's life. Considerations of justice and mercy require such a result. The following summarizes the reasons to extend mercy to Stephen Anderson.

1. Granting clemency is in keeping with the decedents' families' wishes. The victims' families do not need or want Mr. Anderson to be put to death and do not want their loved ones remembered by the extinction of another person's life.
   
   
2. There are extenuating circumstances surrounding the capital offense and the death penalty is excessive in this case. There are circumstances surrounding the crime that mitigate it and show that there was no intent or premeditation on Mr. Anderson's part to specifically kill Mrs. Lyman. Further, the capital offense was a burglary-murder that the prosecutor admitted would not necessarily have been charged as a capital offense. Other burglary- or robbery-murders in San Bernardino County that occurred in the early 1980's were not charged as capital offenses.
   
   
3. Stephen Anderson has shown remorse for Mrs. Lyman's death and promptly accepted responsibility. Mr. Anderson could easily have escaped the crime scene. Instead, he remained to face responsibility for his actions, and admitted his crime when arrested. He has accepted responsibility for his actions since they occurred and is remorseful for them.
   
   
4. Jurors support clemency. Jurors state that if Mr. Anderson's attorney had presented available evidence about his life and if they had known that the victims' families do not clamor for his death, they would have voted to give Mr. Anderson a life sentence. Jurors also state that they were pressured by other jurors and the judge to reach a death verdict.
   
   
5. The death sentence is unreliable because the jury never heard compelling mitigating evidence about Stephen Anderson's upbringing and young adult life. During the penalty phase, the jury briefly heard from a retired prison chaplain who had just met Mr. Anderson the night before. They also heard Mr. Anderson testify. None of Mr. Anderson's testimony was corroborated or supplemented. Ames did not investigate or present any evidence to the jury about the tumultuous family from which Mr. Anderson came, about his childhood and youth, which was deprived and abused, about the care he had shown to family members and friends, about his prison experiences, about the psychological effects his many traumatic life experiences had upon him or about how these events contributed to his actions on the night of the Lyman homicide.
   
   
6. It is impossible to have confidence in the legal process afforded to Stephen Anderson because his trial lawyer, S. Donald Ames, has been found incompetent in his representation of two other capital defendants. The United States Court of Appeals has concluded that Mr. Ames' conduct in two capital cases tried in the early to mid 1980's was so incompetent as to require the reversal of death sentences in those cases. Mr. Ames' conduct of Mr. Anderson's defense was, in many ways, indistinguishable from the same incompetent conduct in these two cases. Thus, the executive can not have confidence that justice was done in Mr. Anderson's case.
   
   
7. The death sentence in this case is unfair because Mr. Ames made additional grave errors. Besides making errors similar to those he made in other capital cases in which he was found incompetent, Mr. Ames made additional grave errors that undermine any confidence in the death verdict in Mr. Anderson's case.
   
   
8. Many of the state and federal judges who have reviewed this case have found fundamental unfairness.Seven judges of the United States Court of Appeals have found grave errors that undermine their confidence in the penalty phase verdict. The errors identified by these judges justify clemency for Mr. Anderson.
   
   
9. Stephen Anderson's family will suffer if he is executed. Stephen Anderson has family members and loved ones who will suffer greatly if he is executed. Since his execution will only add to the suffering of innocent persons, clemency should be granted.
   
   
10. Stephen Anderson's life has redeeming value. During his years on death row, Mr. Anderson has become self-educated and an accomplished poet, short story writer, novelist and graphic artist. His poetry and art have received awards. He has written a play that was performed off-Broadway. His writing expresses an astonishingly wide, fully-aware, and humane perception of, and response to, the world. Through his literary and artistic endeavors, Mr. Anderson is able to contribute in a constructive way to society.
    
    
11. Stephen Anderson deserves a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Since his incarceration on death row in 1981, Mr. Anderson has been a nondisruptive inmate who has adjusted well in an institutionalized setting. A paramount concern in deciding whether to exercise the executive power of clemency is the wishes and feelings of the victims' families. In Mr. Anderson's case, none of them seek his execution. Indeed, his execution will only increase the suffering of other innocent people. Through his literary and artistic endeavors, he can be a voice for positive change. For these and the other reasons that are detailed below, the executive clemency power should be exercised and Mr. Anderson should be granted a life sentence.

Next page > Poems by Stephen Anderson, > page 1, 2, 3