From  American University - Washington College of Law

               
Kevin Stanford as a teenager     Kevin as a young child

                     Kevin Stanford
                     Juvenile Offender Facing Execution in Kentucky

                     Case Talking Points

                     Kevin Stanford, an African American, was 17  years of age at the time of his arrest for the January 7, 1981 murder, robbery, sodomy and theft of Baerbel Poore, a twenty-year old service station attendant. Because Kevin was a juvenile -  under 18 years of age at the time of his crime -his execution would be contrary to American  standards of justice, fairness, and decency as well as international law. In opposing his  execution, we do not, in any way, seek either to excuse the crime or to minimize the pain and  suffering it caused the family and friends of the victim.

                                            The Trial

Kevin Stanford received incoherent and weak representation at both theguilt/innocence and sentencing phases of the trial. At the guilt/innocence  phase of the trial, no attempt was made to either challenge prejudicial testimony, which accused Stanford of bragging about the killing, or to pursue evidence of two eyewitnesses that had positively identified
 someone else, who had recently been released from prison, as being at the murder scene. Kevin Stanford was easily convicted of murder.

Owing to the fact that Kevin's attorneys had done little investigation, there  was minimal mitigating evidence presented at Kevin's sentencing phase, the last opportunity the attorneys had to save his life. No in depth social history investigation was carried out, a fundamental responsibility as a trial attorney. Owing to this consequential error, the jury never heard an accurate portrayal of the life of Kevin Stanford. If Kevin's attorneys had
 conducted even the most cursory mitigation investigation, they would  have located numerous witnesses who would have testified about the severe neglect and abuse that shaped Kevin's life.

                             Kevin Suffered a Brutal Childhood Filled With
                                  Sexual, Physical and Mental Abuse

Kevin Stanford was born in Louisville, Kentucky on August 23, 1963. He  grew up without knowing his father. Kevin's mother frequened a local motorcycle club, and Kevin was exposed to the neglect, maltreatment, and violence of her  lifestyle at a very young age. His mother and other motorcycle members used cocaine and speed freely in front of Kevin; the members gave Kevin his first shot of whiskey at age five.

 Kevin's mother never took responsibility for, or care of, Kevin, shuffling him from relative torelative. He was beaten in most of thesehomes. In fact, when Kevin lived with his aunt
he was so severely beaten with long extension cords that today he still bears the scars. Kevin received such poor supervision that, when he was three or four, he and his young cousins inadvertently set his aunt's house on fire as they were trying to cook themselves a meal. Kevin grew up without normal access to the basics of life - food, medicine and adult-supervision. Indeed, at four years old, Kevin understood he had to barter in order to survive; he would go to restaurants and work for food so he could eat that day.

Most disturbing were the frequent sexual assaults. Kevin was first molested at the age
of five by his babysitter. These assaults continued for many months. This molestation
made Kevin a vulnerable target in his neighborhood; neighborhood boys would inimidate Kevin into performing oral sex on them and the neighborhood girls would also coerce Kevin into having sex. Kevin was also a victim of abuse at the hands of his stepfather's
nephew for over three years. So accustomed to the molestation, Kevin did not realize that
he was being abused. To survive, he began to perform sexual acts in exchange for drugs, money and a place to stay. This survival tactic of exchanging sex continued up to the day of Kevin's arrest.

                                      The Abuse Takes its Toll

With the onset of adolescence, Kevin began to use drugs and alcoholmore frequently. At twelve Kevin was using alcohol and marijuana on a daily basis. When Kevin entered juvenile facilities he was introduced to LSD, hashish and amphetamines. At one juvenile facility he attempted  suicide, but failed.

Over the years Kevin has had a range of IQ test scores; an IQ score between 90 and 100 is considered average, a score below 70 is indicative of mental retardation. Kevin's scores range from a high of 116 at age six, to a low of 70 at ages ten and fifteen, rising later to a 92 and a 94 at ages seventeen and twenty-nine respectively. The two IQ scores of 70 strongly indicate that Kevin's intellectual and scholastic problems were a result of
  the trauma he had experienced from sexual and physical abuse, neglect and isolation, environmental deprivation and the constant disruptions and uncertainties of his family life. This was compounded by drug and alcohol abuse. It is imperative to recognize, however, that his attorney failed to adequately present and explain these findings and the possible causes  for the varying test scores, thereby giving the jury a woefully inadequate
 and incomplete picture of who Kevin Stanford actually was.

                           Executing Juvenile Offenders Runs Counter to Basic
                              Standards of American Justice and Fairness

 The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles
 of American justice, which punishes according to the degree of culpability
 and reserves death for the worst offenders. By their very nature, teenagers
are less mature, and therefore less culpable than adults. Adolescence is
 a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment,
 impulse control, identity -- even the brain -- are still developing. Indeed,
 immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under eighteen to assume
the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service,
voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical
decisions.

Immaturity, compounded by additional extenuating circumstances, may
demonstrate why the death penalty is not an appropriate form of
punishment. A high percentage of juveniles on death row have suffered
from all, or a combination of, the following mitigating factors; mental
 abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug addiction, abandonment and
severe poverty. These factors may cause serious distress for the children
involved. Trauma ordinarily arrests development in children and can
frustrate all aspects of the child's functioning, including brain
development. Children who are physically or sexually abused may be
 functioning at an emotional level close to the age when the trauma
occurred. Furthermore, trauma may affect the development of the brain,
 with a involuntary fear response remaining the child's coping mechanism
 for most if not all degrees of stress. The experience of an abused and
traumatized child is one of fear and frustration. Further, adolescents
reason differently from adults, their processes are immature, including
 non-anticipation of an out come, underestimation of danger, and notably,
the presumption that only one choice is available for them.

 A growing number of organizations oppose executions for crimes
committed by offenders under the age of 18. These include the American
Bar Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the Child
Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law
Center, the Juvenile Law Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy for
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the National Mental Health
Association. Similarly, the United Nations High Commission for Human
Rights, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the Vatican.
Their message is the same, they urge that the execution for a crime
committed while a juvenile is simply unacceptable in a civilized society.

                       Executing Juvenile Offenders is Contrary to International Law

The execution of child offenders is not only contrary to principles of
 American justice, but is also in contravention of international law and
 fundamental standards of human rights. The ultimate goal of the
 international community is to abolish the death penalty under all
circumstances, however, until that time there are restrictions on the
 categories of persons who can be executed, juveniles being one of the
 restricted categories. The prohibition of the execution of juveniles is
 referenced in a number of international treaties, declarations, and
statements by international bodies, in addition to the laws of the majority
of nations. The execution of juveniles is expressly forbidden in the
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6(5),
the American Convention on Human Rights, Chapter 2, Article 4, Section
5, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Article 68 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC), Article 37.

In continuing to execute juveniles, the United States acts in defiance of
substantial international consensus and law. Indeed, the US stands
virtually alone in this practice. Since 1990, only seven countries have
reportedly executed juveniles: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC), Yemen, Pakistan and the United States. In the
last three years the small number of nations known to have executed
 juveniles has declined further to only three: the DRC, Iran and the United
States. In 1994, Yemen changed its law to prohibit the execution of
juveniles. The Nigerian government asserted to the UN Sub-Commission
 that the execution, which took place in 1997 was not of a juvenile and
Saudi Arabia emphatically denies the 1992 execution of a juvenile. In July
2000, Pakistan moved to outlaw such executions under the Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance signed on 1 July 2000, and in December 1999,
the DRC called for a moratorium on all executions. However, in January
2000, a 14 year-old child soldier was executed in the DRC. Since that
time, according to OMCT-World Organization Against Torture, four
 juvenile offenders sentenced to death in the DRC in a military court were
granted stays and the sentences were commuted following an appeal
 from the international community.

 It is unmistakable that beyond the borders of the United States, the
application of the death penalty for child offenders is rapidly advancing
 towards total abolition. Of the six countries, other than the US, that have
reportedly executed juvenile offenders, all have either changed their laws
or the governments have denied that the executions took place.

                                           Conclusion

Kevin Stanford is now 38 years of age. While incarcerated, Kevin has
 worked hard to educate himself. He and his wife Eileen have been married
for six years. His daughter, Lakiesha, who was born within the month
 following his arrest, is almost 21 years old and a sophomore at Northern
Kentucky University.

The all white jury, which sentenced Kevin Stanford, an African-American
teenager, to death knew only a small part of the tragic life story. Now
Kevin Stanford's best chance rests with the Kentucky Legislature, which
is considering the issue of the juvenile death penalty. Kentucky Governor
Paul Patton has announced that he will support a bill that will end the
execution of juvenile offenders.

                     To contact the Governor, please write to:

                          Governor Paul Patton
                          The Capitol
                          700 Capitol Avenue
                          Suite 100
                          Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3492

                     Case Timeline

A motion for a new trial and sentencing pursuant to Kentucky Rule of
 Criminal Procedure 11.42 was filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court in April
1990. Less than two months after it was filed, the court denied Kevin's
motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court of Kentucky
 affirmed in Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 854 S.W.2d 742 (1993). His
  petition for a writ of habeas corpus was then denied, without an
      evidentiary hearing, by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky in December 1999. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied his habeas appeal on September 20,
2001. Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2001). Rehearing en banc
was denied on November 29, 2001. A cert petition is due to be filed on or
before February 27, 2002. Kevin is in the last stages of his appeals.
 

RETURN TO KEVIN STANFORD'S HOMEPAGE

              The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                                  Contact us for more information.
            
                                                       "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"