No Choirboy: Murder, Violence, and Teenagers on Death Row

Capital murder generally refers to first-degree murder committed with certain aggravating circumstances; examples include murder during the commission of another felony, the murder of a witness or of a police officer who was on duty, or murder in which the victim was tortured or raped. Typically, those convicted of felony murder are sentenced either to death or to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Roy, Nanon, and Napoleon were charged with capital murder because they committed their acts in conjunction with a felony (robbery or drug-dealing), and Mark, because his victim was a state witness.

A cause célèbre is an issue or event that ignites widespread controversy, public debate, and activism, often on a global scale; the “Dreyfus affair” of 1894, with its revelations of entrenched antisemitism in the French military and elsewhere, is the classic example. The death sentence of Napoleon Beazley, an honor student who was 17 years old at the time of his offense, sparked protests around the world concerning Trying Juveniles as Adults as well as Race, Injustice, and Capital Punishment.

Mitigating circumstances, also called extenuating circumstances, are various factors that can reduce the severity or culpability of a criminal offense, mandating a lighter sentence or even acquittal. Examples include the offender’s age, lack of a criminal record, troubled upbringing, state of mind during the commission of the act, and intellectual disability or mental illness. At Napoleon’s trial, such mitigating factors as his youth and lack of a criminal record were largely dismissed by the judge and jury, who sentenced him to death.

Modus operandi (MO), literally “mode of operating,” is a phrase used widely within law enforcement to refer to the habits or methods of certain criminals or classes of criminals in the commission of their acts; a detailed understanding of MO can be useful in solving or anticipating crimes. It can also refer to the standard procedures of other professions, such as law enforcement itself. Stevenson suggests that part of the MO of detectives and prosecutors investigating crimes that have more than one author is to offer one or more of the suspects deals to procure their testimony against other suspects. This is what happened to Roy, Nanon, and Napoleon, and in each case, Kuklin introduces doubts that their accomplices’ testimony was truthful.

By turning state’s evidence, a criminal admits their guilt and agrees to give evidence against one or more accomplices, usually in exchange for leniency or even immunity from prosecution. Such testimony is by its nature suspect to some degree. The sworn testimony of Vaal G., who gave evidence in court against Nanon, directly contradicted his initial statement to police, in which he confessed to firing at the victim.

In the case of an execution, a stay (temporary reprieve) may result from a review of new evidence or other appeals, or from pending decisions in other cases. In 2002, the state of Missouri granted a stay of execution to Chris Simmons to await the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which had bearing on his case. However, the state of Texas did not grant a similar stay to Napoleon, executing him shortly thereafter.

In exchange for testimony against other defendants, prosecutors may offer a potential defendant immunity (either partial or total), protecting them from prosecution for certain crimes related to their testimony. In many cases, as Stevenson points out, the first suspect who willingly talks to police benefits from this arrangement. In the case of Roy, Roy’s three accomplices agreed to testify against him in exchange for total immunity and served not a single day in jail, even though other witnesses had called the truthfulness of their testimony into question.