On February 3, 2000, Betty Beets asked this Board to grant her a reprieve, convene a hearing, and commute her death sentence to one of life imprisonment. On February 4, 2000, counsel for Ms. Beets discovered a legislative mandate directing the Board to thoroughly investigate cases such as hers. In 1991, the Texas legislature passed SCR-26, a resolution calling upon this Board, in conjunction with the Texas Council on Family Violence, to investigate all cases of persons convicted of murder, when the offense was related to family violence. Pursuant to that mandate, this Board adopted extensive regulations and published them in August 1991.

The Board established two initial "screening" criteria to determine whether an inmate was eligible for this special review process: (1) the inmate was convicted of murder, capital murder, or manslaughter; and (2) the inmate killed a spouse, partner, or household member. Any inmate whose case satisfied these two criteria was to receive notice from the Board, and an opportunity to present evidence regarding her history of abuse, including documents, medical records, and affidavits. The Texas Council on Family Violence was to assist the inmate in presenting this information.

The Board’s own guidelines for clemency required consideration notwithstanding the fact that the inmate’s history of abuse may not have been presented at trial, since battered women’s syndrome was not previously recognized as a defense to murder. The Board was also to consider evidence of an inadequate defense, as well as other factors. The Board contemplated that this initial review would take several months.

Although Betty’s case clearly qualified for review, this Board never notified her that she was eligible to participate in the review process. It appears that her case was simply overlooked.

Betty now asks this Board to give her case the consideration mandated by SCR-26, as well as by the Board’s own regulations. Clearly, a substantial reprieve is necessary to allow counsel, in conjunction with the Texas Council on Family Violence, to submit further documentation of abuse. Counsel has not had adequate time to gather this information for presentation to the Board, nor has the Council had an adequate opportunity to conduct an independent review of Ms. Beets’ case. The trial court scheduled Betty’s execution without notifying counsel, and denied counsel’s request for additional time to prepare a clemency application. Counsel had only days to prepare her clemency application. Moreover, it is clear that the Texas legislature, and former Governor Richards, directed this Board to grant cases such as Betty’s special consideration. A reprieve of at least 180 days is necessary to fulfill this mandate.

With her clemency application, Ms. Beets submitted affidavits and expert evaluations describing the horrific abuse she endured at the hands of the men in her life. While these exhibits begin to document Betty’s history of beatings, sexual assault and traumatic head injury, the force of these documents is diluted by the limitations of a paper record. There is simply no substitute for live testimony of witnesses who saw the beatings and observed the humiliation Betty endured. Only after a hearing could this Board judge the merits of her request for clemency.

Attached to this supplement are six documents. The first is a letter from the Texas Council on Family Violence, the organization jointly responsible, along with this Board, for the implementation of SCR-26. The Texas Council joins in Betty’s request for a reprieve, and urges this Board to grant her – at minimum – a substantial reprieve to allow for considered review of her case.

The second and third appendices are affidavits from Betty’s daughters, Faye Lane and Phyllis Coleman. In these affidavits, Faye and Phyllis describe again the beatings their mother endured, and ask this Board to commute her death sentence.

The fourth appendix is an affidavit from Robert Miller. Mr. Miller recalls trial counsel’s shameful enthusiasm for the media spectacle surrounding Ms. Beets’ case, as well as trial counsel’s prodigious consumption of alcohol at the tavern tended by Mr. Miller during Ms. Beets’ trial. We quoted Mr. Miller’s affidavit in the initial Clemency Application, but did not at that time have a copy of the affidavit. We have now corrected this omission.

The fifth appendix contains two photos of Ms. Beets, taken roughly one week after she was horribly beaten by her husband, Doyle Wayne Barker.