I ran across this rather disturbing article:
The Disturbing Case of Kenneth Foster
Kenneth Foster is a native of San Antonio, Texas. He has been on death row since 1997, sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Michael LaHood, Jr.
Kenneth did not shoot LaHood. This is not an innocence claim made solely by his supporters. The state of Texas will be the first to admit that Kenneth
is factually innocent of murder. How is he still on death row? Texas's Law of Parties, the only legislation of its kind in a death penalty state,
holds individuals criminally responsible for the offense of another if the prosecution can prove they actively promoted or assisted the commission of
the offense or should have anticipated that it would have taken place.
On August 14, 1996, Kenneth Foster was driving a car carrying Mauriceo Brown, Dewayne Dillard, and Julius Steen. That night, Brown and Steen committed
two armed robberies, at which point Kenneth asked Dillard to persuade them to stop. On the way home, Foster ended up behind a car carrying Michael
LaHood, Jr. and his girlfriend, Mary Patrick. Concerned that Foster was deliberately following them, Patrick waved the car down in front of the LaHood
residence. Brown exited the car, presumably to talk to Patrick and get her phone number. Dillard testified that no one anticipated violence, and that
Brown took the gun without permission or knowledge of the other men. When Brown approached the woman, her boyfriend Michael LaHood appeared in the
driveway. Brown and LaHood exchanged words, a shot was fired, and Michael LaHood lay dead. All of this transpired while the other three men remained
in the car, 80 feet away from the scene of the crime, with the windows rolled up and radio turned on. After hearing the gunshots, Kenneth began to
drive away, but Brown managed to get back in the car.
All of the above is well-corroborated by all four of the men on that evening. Brown admitted to shooting LaHood but insisted it was in self defense.
However, the state tried Kenneth and Mauriceo together for capital murder, basing Kenneth's charges on the Law of Parties. They claimed that because
two robberies had already taken place that night, he should have anticipated that Brown might have tried to rob LaHood and Patrick. Because he should
have anticipated a robbery could have taken place, he also should have known a murder could possibly take place. This shaky logic, along with
testimony from Steen (who later retracted part of his testimony), was enough to sentence both Brown (who was executed in 2006) and Kenneth to
death.
More...
The article further explains:
The Law of Parties was adopted in 1974. It states that a person is equally responsible for the criminal conduct of another if "acting with intent to
promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages, directs, aids or attempts to aid the other persons to commit the offense" or
"If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are
guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and
was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy." The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed ruled on laws of this
nature, drawing the conclusion that you cite above in the 1982 Enmund v. Florida decision. However the court has not heard any cases from Texas
related to this issue. The only other case related to policies such as the Law of Parties is the 1987 Tison v. Arizona decision in which the Justices
upheld the death sentences of two brothers who aided their father in a deadly prison escape. The decision stated that ""knowingly engaging in
criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state." They added that "We will not attempt to
precisely delineate the particular types of conduct and states of mind warranting imposition of the death penalty. ... Rather, we simply hold that
major participation in the felony ... combined with reckless indifference to human life is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement."
Thus, the legal precedent on policies like the Law of Parties remains highly ambiguous.
...
There is very little basis for believing that Kenneth had any malicious intent toward Michael LaHood, Jr. Yes, he was driving the car that night and
robberies took place. However, there is every reason to believe that Kenneth had no idea LaHood's life was in danger. There was also no conspiracy to
rob him. He did not even know the gun had left the car. His jury, moreover, was only instructed to determine if he was associated with Brown and
should have anticipated his actions. As Judge Furgeson pointed out in 2005, these instructions are not consistent with the intent of the Law of
Parties. Kenneth is effectively facing an execution date for a failure of hindsight. As Kenneth's criminal lawyer, Keith Hampton, wrote in his
federal appeal, "By employing the conspiracy liability statute, the state is able to make persons death-eligible on nothing greater than a negligence
standard that the defendant 'should have anticipated' that his conspirator would, in the course of any planned felony, intentionally kill another
person." He added, "negligence is the least culpable mental state known to criminal law."
Leaving aside the facts of this case and their application to this law (which I think is troubling enough), it's hard to see how such a law is not
ripe for abuse?