The law is influenced by social conditions and societal ideas. Wanda Jean's jury was anything but impartial: the all-white, Bible Belt Southerners, likely failed to relate to the black, lesbian, ‘murderous villain’ presented before them. I can't help but wonder how Wanda Jean's case would have turned out had she either (1) been white, heterosexual, and privy to a middle-class upbringing OR (2) convicted/sentenced by a jury of her actual peers (i.e. black and similarly situated).
With regard to legal fairness, Wanda Jean's constitutional rights were violated in several ways: First, her public defender requested removal from her original case in 1988 after learning of the state's intention to pursue the death penalty. Because he had never defended a death penalty case, he, admittedly, lacked the necessary experience and requested withdrawal. His request was denied; so much for the constitutional right to assistance of counsel.
Secondly, Wanda Jean sustained brain damage to her frontal lobe in early childhood. Studies have indicated that frontal lobe damage results in the lack of inhibition and impulse control, particularly under conditions of stress. This evidence of brain damage and mental impairment was never presented in her original trial. Additionally, Wanda Jean's IQ was 69, which placed her in the category of mild mental retardation. This information, like the frontal lobe damage, was never presented during her 1989 trial.
Procedurally, Wanda Jean went to trial in 1989. Her attorney, an inexperienced public defender, was unqualified to defend a death penalty case. Again, he requested and was denied removal from Wanda Jean’s case. At trial, he mistakenly portrayed Wanda Jean as a normal, functioning human being, when, in all actuality, nothing could have been further from the truth. Wanda Jean was mentally retarded, sustained frontal lobe brain damage, and had a history of emotional dysregulation. Said brain damage and mental deficits were never presented to the jury.
After 12 years on death row, Wanda Jean faced a clemency board in 2001. Further inequities in our system were exemplified here: The clemency board, whose members worked on a part-time basis with no legal background or qualifications, were astonishingly disinterested in hearing Wanda Jean’s plea for her life. In fact, Wanda Jean’s attorneys had prepped her for potential questions from the board. At the end of Wanda Jean’s tearful speech for clemency, the board was asked if they had any questions -- to which they responded with a resounding “no”.
Wanda Jean Allen was executed in January of 2001. This case was an abhorrent miscarriage of justice and a disturbing example of inequities within our criminal justice system. Years ago, I was more idealistic in terms of repairing our system. However, after observing countless legal proceedings, I must admit that I do not even know where or how to begin. Where does change start?
[1] Grana, S., et al. The Social Context of Law. Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[2] Garbus, Liz. The Execution of Wanda Jean. 2002.
[3] Garbus, Liz. The Execution of Wanda Jean. 2002.