He is going to be re-tried for murder on April 9, 2012.

We are seeking help negotiating this new stage in Tim’s struggle for justice and would appreciate your advice and contribution.  How can we PACK THE COURTS April 9^th?!

——————————————————————————————————————-

Mr. McKinney is former prisoner of TN’s Death Row.  This past year Tim was granted a new trial and he is now in the Memphis County jail awaiting an April 9, 2012 hearing.  I have worked with Tim in cooperation with the Campaign to End the Death Penalty since 2002.

Our efforts include securing pro-bono counsel for his appeals process with the international law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell (read more at http://www.davispolk.com/pro-bono/practices/death-penalty/) and being featured at the CEDP annual conference on multiple occasions. The case is also featured on the Tennesseeans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty’s website at http://www.tennesseedeathpenalty.org/?page_id=156.

At this time we are reaching out to the TN community to get support in anticipation of a challenging process in the courts.  Being granted a new trial is a huge victory but Tim has faced additional challenges in Memphis.

We kindly ask that you take the time to look over Tim’s case and consider how you or other TN activists and professionals might help our cause.  Please let me know what I can do to assist you in joining our campaign.  We know your time is valuable.

How can we PACK THE COURTS April 9^th?!

Thank you for your consideration,

Katharine Bawa Smith

Chairwoman

Timothy McKinney Innocence Committee

smith.katharine@gmail.com

(703) 336 3440

——————————————————————————————————————

I am inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words: “I do not think that God approves the death penalty for any crime, rape and murder included.  Capital punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God.”

“Counsel’s constitutionally deficiencies throughout the representation of the Petitioner establish cumulative prejudice of such magnitude that we conclude that the Petitioner’s right to a fair proceeding was prejudiced. There is a reasonable probability that, absent their deficiencies, the outcome of both the guilt phase and the sentencing phase of the trial would have been different. The nature and extent of counsel’s deficiencies rendered the entire proceeding fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, upon review of the entire record, we conclude that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the post-conviction court. Considering the prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficiencies in their representation in both the preparation and trial of this case, we reverse the judgment of the lower court denying post-conviction relief for this offense, and a new trial is granted.”

Full PDF here.