SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2010
KLMNO These three people pleaded guilty to the same two murders . . .
member with a life insurance policy. On the night of Oct. 30, 2002, Lewis
Teresa Lewis was sentenced to die.
Matthew Shallenberger got a life sentence.
Rodney Fuller was also given a life term.
Why is Teresa Lewis on death row?
by John Grisham T
he Commonwealth of Virginia already has a serious relation- ship with its death penalty. In the past three decades, only Texas has executed more in-
mates. But on Sept. 23, the Old Domin- ion will enter new territory when it ex- ecutes a female inmate for the first time in nearly a century. Her name is Teresa Lewis, she is the only woman on death row at the Fluvan- na Correctional Center for Women, and her appeals have all but expired. If she is executed, she will become another glar- ing example of the unfairness of our death penalty system. Lewis is not innocent. She confessed to the police, pled guilty to the judge and for almost eight years has expressed pro- found remorse for her role in two mur- ders. As with most violent crimes, a recita- tion of the facts of this case would fill
pages; still, a brief summary drawn from news reports, letters and affidavits is useful. In 2002, Lewis, then 33, lived with her second husband in a mobile home in a rural area near Danville. She was having an affair with a man named Matthew Shallenberger, who, though nothing more than a common thug, had ambitions. He was looking for seed mon- ey to establish a distribution ring for il- licit drugs, but his real dream was to be- come an accomplished hitman, Mafia- style. He reasoned that if he could build his résumé, his reputation would spread all the way to New York, and he could somehow join the big leagues of contract killing.
Shallenberger had a partner named
Rodney Fuller, and it is not clear if he was also afflicted with these grand ideas. What is clear is that the three — Shallen- berger, Fuller and Lewis — participated in a scheme to kill Lewis’s husband for his money. At some point, the plans broadened to include the murder of her 25-year-old stepson, a National Guard
left a door unlocked, got into bed with her husband and waited. Shallenberger and Fuller entered through the unlocked door, as planned. Shallenberger blasted the husband with a shotgun while, at the other end of the trailer, Fuller shot the stepson. Needless to say, the crime scenes were gruesome. Lewis initially claimed that the kill- ings were the work of an intruder, but the authorities suspected otherwise. Af- ter being confronted, she broke down, confessed and fingered Shallenberger and Fuller. All three were arrested and charged with capital murder. Fuller’s lawyers were quick off the mark. They realized the futility of a de- fense and advised their client to cut a deal — to plead guilty and promise to tes- tify against his two co-conspirators in ex- change for life without parole. Lewis’s lawyers likewise wanted no
part of a jury trial. The evidence of their client’s guilt was overwhelming, and they felt strongly that, after hearing all the facts and seeing the color photos from the crime scene, any jury would be in a hanging mood. They advised Lewis to plead guilty and to take her chances with the trial judge who would deter- mine her sentence. They believed this judge would give her life in prison be- cause he had just sentenced Fuller to the same. Furthermore, Lewis had no crimi- nal record and no history of violence. She had cooperated with the authorities. And no woman had received the death penalty in Virginia since 1912. But Lewis was sentenced to die. Up last was Shallenberger, who in the middle of his trial changed his plea to guilty. The trial judge (the same who had sentenced Fuller and Lewis) sentenced him to life in prison. Prosecutors had al- ready promised life to Fuller, and it wouldn’t be fair, the judge reasoned, to give one of the triggermen death when the other got life.
B
B5 The judge’s rationale in giving Lewis a
death sentence was that she was more culpable than the men, who shot their victims as they slept. The killings were her idea, the judge reasoned; she was the mastermind; she recruited Shallenberg- er and Fuller to do the dirty work; she wanted the money; and so on. Although much of this went unchal-
lenged at Lewis’s sentencing hearing, it has since been challenged on appeal. Lawyers for Lewis have presented evi- dence that:
(1) She has an IQ of just above 70 — borderline retarded — and as such lacks the basic skills necessary to organize and lead a conspiracy to commit murder for hire;
(2) She has dependent personality dis-
order and therefore complied with the demands of those upon whom she relied, especially men;
(3) Because of a long list of physical ailments she had developed an addiction to pain medications, and this adversely affected her judgment; and
(4) She had not a single episode of vio- lent behavior in the past. Her lawyers have also argued that Shallenberger, who committed suicide behind bars in 2006, masterminded the murders. They have pointed to evidence that he had an IQ of 113 and was known to be intelligent and manipulative. They have cited the sworn affidavit of
a private investigator who interviewed Shallenberger in prison in 2004. This in- vestigator said Shallenberger described Lewis as not very bright and as someone who could be easily duped into a scheme to kill her husband and stepson for mon- ey. According to the investigator, Shal- lenberger said: “From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated. From the moment I met her I had a plan for how I could use her to get some money.” Lewis’s lawyers have also cited a letter Shallenberger sent to a girlfriend shortly after he was sentenced, in which he
wrote, “I figured why go to New York for $20,000 a hit when I could do just one and make $350,000 off of it.” In the same letter he said of Lewis: “She was exactly what I was looking for.” In addition, they have cited a 2004 af-
fidavit by Shallenberger’s fellow assas- sin, Fuller, who said this: “As between Mrs. Lewis and Shallenberger, Shallen- berger was definitely the one in charge of things, not Mrs. Lewis.” Under Virginia law, Lewis, Fuller and Shallenberger are all guilty of murder. Why, then, did the triggermen get life without parole while Lewis received a sentence of death? Ostensibly, it is be- cause she was the ringleader and thus more culpable. But what could make a killer more culpable than repeatedly shooting a sleeping victim? Lewis has appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but her chances do not look good. Her lawyers have also filed a petition for executive clemency with Gov. Bob McDonnell’s office; they are, as of this writing, awaiting a decision. In this case, as in so many capital cases, the imposition of a death sentence had little do with fairness. Like other death sentences, it depended more upon the assignment of judge and prosecutor, the location of the crime, the quality of the defense counsel, the speed with which a co-defendant struck a deal, the quality of each side’s experts and other such factors. In Virginia, the law is hardly consis-
tent. There have been other cases with similar facts — a wife and her lover scheme to kill her husband for his money or for life insurance proceeds. But there is no precedent for the wife being sen- tenced to death.
Such inconsistencies mock the idea
that ours is a system grounded in equal- ity before the law.
John Grisham’s latest novel is “The Confession,” forthcoming in October. He lives near Charlottesville.
Our overreaction to 9/11 continues
9/11 from B1 SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES Leaders from more than 55 mosques gathered Sept. 1 in New York to defend the planned Islamic center near Ground Zero. Not a time for Muslim isolation islam from B1
Negative perceptions of Islam are hardly new in the West — they date back to the medieval age, not to Sept. 11, 2001. In the late 20th century, they were overt- ly revealed through crises such as the Ira- nian revolution and the Salman Rushdie affair, which suggested that Islam threat- ened Western security interests as well as core values such as freedom of expres- sion. More recently, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pen- tagon (as well as in Bali, Madrid and Lon- don) as well as the Danish cartoon fiasco only appeared to confirm to many in the West that Islam is an enemy, forever es- tranged from them. The wars in Afghani- stan and in Iraq and the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict feed the same fears. New domestic realities in Europe and America also deepen these negative feel- ings. The increased visibility of Muslims — through clothes, mosques, even skin color — shows that Western societies are changing, and such change is often frightening. Homogeneous identities, whether real or imagined, are becoming blurred as Americans and Europeans wonder about the future of their nations and cultures. The Muslim presence is also often con-
flated with larger debates over immigra- tion. The United States’ future is bleak without immigrants to help sustain the economy, but there is a deep cultural and psychological resistance to this inescap- able reality. This affects not only Latinos, but also Muslims who already are and will increasingly become part of Amer- ican society.
If we add to these factors the general instability associated with war and with the economic downturn, we get a picture of an identity crisis of sorts in America, and of how a nation of immigrants founded on freedom of expression and religion can now be torn by doubt, mis- trust and fear. Little wonder that the presence of Muslims is generating alarm
and almost outright rejection. American Muslims must understand the sources of this fear and must behave accordingly. Whatever the tainted at- mosphere today, the United States is not inherently anti-Islam in a religious sense or anti-Muslim in a racial sense. It is time for Muslims not to be on the defensive, to stop apologizing for being Muslims and to be more assertive about their values, duties, rights and contributions to the society in which they live. This is not a time for intellectual, social, political, eco- nomic or cultural isolation. The new Muslim Americans (mainly coming from the Middle East or Asia) should learn more from the historical ex- perience of African Americans, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Once en- slaved and denigrated in the United States, they are now involved in all the mainstream American debates and ac- tivities, whether education, justice, poli- tics, culture, arts or sports. Their strug- gle is far from over, but they show the way forward for American Muslims. With more active involvement, Muslims can get a deeper sense of what it means to be American, to feel more confident, to communicate and interact with their fel- low citizens. Life is not only about rights to be claimed but also about collective sensibilities to be felt. It is possible to protect one’s rights while at the same time acknowledging and understanding the concerns of others. This leads us into the major debate of the moment for Islam in America. No doubt, it is the legitimate right of Mus- lims to build a community center near Ground Zero. Yet, I believe it is not a wise decision, considering the collective sen- sitivities in American society. This is a moment to go beyond rights and reach for the common good: To build it else- where, if possible, would be a sensible and symbolic move. Doing so does not mean we must accept the false premise that Islam is responsible for 9/11, and it does not mean sacrificing one’s rights to
the populist, neoconservative and reli- gious fundamentalist voices that seek to transform the issue into a new clash of civilizations.
All Americans — be they Muslims,
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists or agnostics — who are deter- mined to promote a just and pluralistic society should resist today’s irrational fears. And as I watch not only the battle in New York but also the reaction to the Rev. Terry Jones’s threat to burn the Ko- ran in Florida on the Sept. 11 anniversary, I feel optimistic. We have seen Jewish and Christian representatives, as well as intellectuals and artists from across the political and religious spectrum, express support for the Islamic center because it would help bridge religions and citizens. These voices, in their diversity, represent both an evolution and an affirmation of America, and they must be heard and valued. The overwhelming condemna- tion of “Burn a Koran Day” might have been motivated partly by its potential consequences for U.S. soldiers in Afghan- istan (as Gen. David Petraeus warned about), but it is clear that many Amer- icans think such a disrespectful act would cross an unacceptable line. Once again, we heard a diversity of voices call- ing for respect and dignity. American society, including Muslims, faces a choice: It can be driven by mis- trust, fundamentalism and populism, or it can rely on constructive religious and civic organizations working for a better common future. The Muslim struggle for respect, justice and understanding has just started in the United States, and Muslims won’t win it on their own. For- tunately, the country is full of formal and informal alliances of people of good will promoting pluralism and ready to sup- port them. This work is not easy, and it will take much time, determination and courage. But whatever controversies may rage in New York, Florida or elsewhere, we should trust the enduring, positive forces at work in American society.
ism is that there is no such thing as ab- solute security. Each incident provokes the contemplation of something worse to come. The Bush administration con- vinced itself that the minds that con- spired to turn passenger jets into bal- listic missiles might discover the means to arm such “missiles” with chemical, biological or nuclear pay- loads. This became the existential nightmare that led, in short order, to a progression of unsubstantiated as- sumptions: that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruc- tion, including nuclear weapons; that there was a connection between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden had nothing to do with fostering these misconceptions. None of this had any real connection to 9/11. There was no group known as “al- Qaeda in Iraq” at that time. But the po- litical climate of the moment overcame whatever flaccid opposition there was to invading Iraq, and the United States marched into a second theater of war, one that would prove far more intrac- table and painful and draining than its supporters had envisioned. While President Obama has recently declared America’s combat role in Iraq over, he glossed over the likelihood that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will have to remain there, possibly for several years to come, because Iraq lacks the military capability to protect itself against external (read: Iranian) aggression. The ultimate irony is that Hussein, to keep his neighbors in check, allowed them and the rest of the world to believe that he might have weapons of mass destruction. He thereby brought about his own de- struction, as well as the need now for U.S. forces to fill the void that he and his menacing presence once provided. As for the 100,000 U.S. troops in or headed for Afghanistan, many of them will be there for years to come, too — not because of America’s commitment
washingtonpost.com/liveonline. on
washingtonpost.com
Ted Koppel will discuss this article at 2 p.m. Monday at
untenable for the government in Is- lamabad, however, tens of thousands of U.S. troops are likely to remain parked next door in Afghanistan for some time. Perhaps bin Laden foresaw some of these outcomes when he launched his 9/11 operation from Taliban-secured bases in Afghanistan. Since nations targeted by terrorist groups routinely abandon some of their cherished prin- ciples, he may also have foreseen something along the lines of Abu Ghraib, “black sites,” extraordinary rendition and even the prison at Guan- tanamo Bay. But in these and many other developments, bin Laden needed our unwitting collaboration, and we have provided it — more than $1 tril- lion spent on two wars, more than 5,000 of our troops killed, tens of thou- sands of Iraqis and Afghans dead. Our military is so overstretched that de- fense contracting — for everything from interrogation to security to the gathering of intelligence — is one of our few growth industries. We have raced to Afghanistan and
Iraq, and more recently to Yemen and Somalia; we have created a swollen na- tional security apparatus; and we are so absorbed in our own fury and so oblivious to our enemy’s intentions that we inflate the building of an Is- lamic center in Lower Manhattan into a national debate and watch, helpless, while a minister in Florida outrages even our friends in the Islamic world by threatening to burn copies of the Koran.
If bin Laden did not foresee all this, then he quickly came to understand it. In a 2004 video message, he boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction. “All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a
Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos?
to a functioning democracy there; even less because of what would hap- pen to Afghan girls and women if the Taliban were to regain control. The reason is nuclear weapons. Pakistan has an arsenal of 60 to 100 nuclear warheads. Were any of those to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda’s funda- mentalist allies in Pakistan, there is no telling what the consequences might be.
Again, this dilemma is partly of our own making. America’s war on terror- ism is widely perceived throughout Pa- kistan as a war on Islam. A muscular Islamic fundamentalism is gaining ground there and threatening the sta- bility of the government, upon which we depend to guarantee the security of those nuclear weapons. Since a robust U.S. military presence in Pakistan is
small piece of cloth on which is written ‘al-Qaeda’ in order to make the gener- als race there, to cause America to suf- fer human, economic and political losses.” Through the initial spending of a
few hundred thousand dollars, train- ing and then sacrificing 19 of his foot soldiers, bin Laden has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized interna- tional franchise since McDonald’s. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less? Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish — and how we have accommodated him.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166