Patrick Knight

Patrick Bryan Knight a.k.a. Dead Man Laughing (January 12, 1968 – June 26, 2007) was convicted of double murder and placed on Texas death row. Patrick Knight, who was 23 years old at the time of the crime, had been on death row for more than one third of his life. Sixteen years after receiving the death penalty, his case came to worldwide attention after Knight announced that he would tell a joke as his last statement and was issuing a contest for the winning entry. Many believed the contest was insensitive to the families of the victims and a ploy for attention. Knight denied that he ever meant any disrespect by the joke contest and assured that it would be sensitive to the victims' families. Knight was executed on June 26, 2007, stating that "Death has set me free; that's the biggest joke. I deserve this. And the other joke is I am not Patrick Bryan Knight, and ya'll can't stop this execution now." [ [http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/knightpatricklast.htm Last statement of Patrick Knight from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice] ] [ [http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21976443-401,00.html Dead Man Laughing delivers sober joke before execution] ]

Early life

Patrick Knight came from a highly dysfunctional family background. Alcohol abuse was reportedly common in the family and became a factor throughout his adult life, including being heavily under the influence at the time of his later offences. When Knight was four years old, he was found at the bottom of a swimming pool with a tricycle on top of him. He required emergency hospitalization and experienced seizures for at least a year afterwards. From the age of nine, he was taken to psychologists on a number of occasions due to behavioural problems. At the age of 13 he dropped out of school.Unreferenced|date=August 2007

Murders, trial, and appeals

Patrick Knight was executed in Texas on 26 June, 2007. He was sentenced to death in Randall County in 1993 for the murder of Mary Ann and Walter Werner in 1991.

The evidence presented at his trial stated that on the morning of the 26th of August, 1991, Patrick Knight and his friend Robert Bradfield broke into the home of Mary Ann and Walter Werner near the city of Amarillo in order to burglarize it. The couple returned home during the burglary and the assailants locked them in the basement of the property. On the night of the 27th of August they were put in their van, driven into the countryside and shot in the head. Questioning of Knight, who lived in a trailer next to the Werners' house, by the police led to a full confession and he subsequently led the police to the victims' bodies. A verdict of guilty to capital murder was passed on the case of Knight, as well as his accomplice, Robert Bradfield. Knight was sentenced to death and Bradfield to life imprisonment.

The case drew attention first from international judiciary on the grounds that in order to pass a death sentence, a Texas capital jury must unanimously find the defendant would pose a future danger to society if allowed to live, even in prison. During Knight's sentencing the prosecution presented 16 witnesses, including jail staff and other inmates, to support a future dangerousness finding. Nearly half of the witnesses brought forward testified about the defendant's bad conduct in the pre-trial detention period only and the defense presented no mitigation witnesses at all. A post-conviction affadavit from the lead defense lawyer revealed that because he believed there was 'little doubt about his client's guilt', he had focused on investigating potential mitigating evidence rather than witnesses and claimed that the investigations had been of little use, even for a mental health defense. Knight's mother and grandmother indicated to the defense that they did not wish to help Knight and moved from Amarillo without notice and could not be reached further.

The claim of Knight receiving a constitutionally inadequate representation at sentencing was rejected by appeal courts, regardless of judicial commentary on such. The claim centered around one of the prosecution's witnesses, Cynthia Risley, who was a guard at the jail where Knight was held pre-trial; she had originally testified in the trial that she was part of the team that had found makeshift weapons in his cell, that he had a bad temper, and that she would be afraid of him if it weren't for a metal door between them.

Lack of mitigation

Articleissues
section=y
Citations missing = August 2007
OR = August 2007
POV = August 2007

After the trial it emerged that Ms Risley had more obiter to add in relation to Knight that the jury did not hear and it was the basis of this testimony that mitigating value had been found. A federal court heard the matter in 1999 where Risley testified that from her observation and interaction with Knight during the pre-trial custody management, she came to the conclusion that he had clear emotional problems; preferring segregation to general population, he would sometimes refer to her as 'mom'. She stated that his possession of makeshift weapons was an indicator more of his boredom than of violent intent and that although he did not speak of the crime he sought no sympathy for his predicament from her, stating he would take full responsibility for both the murders even though Bradfield had participated in them on the grounds that Bradfields family would not cope if he received the death penalty. She went on to state that it was clear Knight had illustrated remorse over his actions over time as he began to understand the 'gravity of what he had done'. She insisted that he would not be a future danger in prison being kept in a controlled and structured environment and on this grounds of lack of mitigation at his sentencing Amnesty International became involved in the case. The defense had never attempted to contact Risley in relation to the matter, even though she expressed full intent to provide a statement in the mitigation phase. At the federal hearing, the trial lawyer acknowledged that, with hindsight, "it would not have been a bad idea probably" to interview the jailers who had come into contact with Knight.

The US Supreme Court handed down a decision in "Rompilla v Beard" that "even when a capital defendant and his family members have suggested that no mitigating evidence is available, his lawyer is bound to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that counsel knows the prosecution will probably rely on as evidence of aggravation at the trials sentencing phase." The Rompilla case involved a defense counsel who conducted mitigation investigation inclusive of interviews with the family and mental health experts but turned up little in mitigation. The Supreme Court held that the legal representation had been deficient when they failed to examine the courts file on Rompilla's criminal record that they knew the prosecution would utilise to seek a death sentence. Knights lawyer argued in an appeal to the Supreme Court that 'the similarities between this case and Rompilla are striking. Both Knight's counsel and counsel in Rompilla knew that the prosecution intended to use certain evidence as part of its aggravation case during the punishment phase. This evidence (Risley's testimony) was readily available and easily investigated." The Supreme Court however declined to hear the case.

As the date of execution approached his case gained much notoriety because of his decision to collect jokes from around the world in an ad hoc 'last words contest' in order to select one to be his final statement before his execution. He stated that in doing so he did not intend any disrespect to the victims or their family, but merely stated that in such a harsh reality of death row one can only try to laugh things off. The Randall County Criminal District Attorney on the other hand took this act to be an insult to the victims and to the judicial system, stating that Knight's "obscene plan to recite a gag at the moment of execution [gives] the clemency process a bad name." Amnesty International released a statement commenting on the District Attorney's railing at the contest that "Regardless of his motivation, the Texas clemency process has already earned a bad name for itself, having failed to prevent nearly 400 executions in the past 25 years, including of child offenders, prisoners with serious mental disabilities, people denied adequate legal representation, and those whose guilt remained in doubt to the end." and further stated that "There have been 1,080 executions in the USA since capital punishment resumed there in 1977. Texas accounts for 394 of these executions. There have been 23 executions in the USA this year, 15 in Texas."

The last words contest on the other hand pushed the case and Knight himself into the international spotlight which caused for much review by law societies of the case in question drawing critical comments from around the world.

Last words contest

A few months before his execution date, Knight wrote to Doreen Hawk, a Massachusetts death-penalty opponent, about spreading the word that he wanted joke submissions for his last statement. At first Hawk found the request disturbing, because Knight was making a joke out of something as grave as capital punishment. But eventually she came to accept Knight's gallows humor. "He knows they're going to do it," said Hawk, "so he might as well go out laughing." Hawk set up a MySpace page called “Dead Man Laughing” to publicize the contest, and soon the press picked up the story.

Knight said the idea for a joke as his last statement came after a friend, Vincent Gutierrez, was executed in March 2007. Gutierrez laughed from the death chamber gurney: "Where's a stunt double when you need one?" Two months earlier, Knight, Gutierrez, and about ten other inmates participated in a hunger strike at the Polunsky Unit in Texas to protest conditions Knight described as deplorable. Knight was one of the last inmates to end the strike and claims he started the joke contest in part to "ease the tension" of the conditions on death row. "I'm not trying to get any money. I'm not trying to get any pen pals or anything like that. It's just, jokes are needed back there. We need some kind of hilariousness."

Many of the jokes received dealt with the idea of death and the legal system. "Lawyer jokes are real popular," Knight said. "I'm not going to use any profanity if I can find the one I want, or any vulgar content. It wouldn't be bad if it was a little bit on the edge. That would be cool." Inmates on death row were initially at the time supposed to choose the best joke, according to Knight, and the winning joke to be kept secret until the time of his execution.

Knight was executed without cracking a joke, and instead chose to say "Death has set me free; that's the biggest joke. I deserve this."

Controversy

Knight insisted the Dead Man Laughing campaign should not be interpreted as a lack of remorse, some people disagreed. They said his actions are as indefensible as his crime. "It's not a funny occasion," said victim's rights advocate Andy Kahan. "I don't think he'd find it funny if the state decided to pump in 'Another One Bites the Dust' or 'Hit the Road, Jack.' I don't think he'd find that funny either."

Randall County Sheriff Joel Richardson thinks Knight’s joke contest is insensitive. "This tells you a little bit about the guy's character, anyway," said Richardson, who was chief deputy at the time of the Werners' killings and plans to witness Knight's execution. Richardson said that the Werners' son, who has since moved out of Texas, has said he won't speak about the case anymore. "They don't want to draw any more attention to this guy than is possible," Richardson said.

Yet attention is what the media gave him. Relaxed and cracking jokes, Knight suddenly became serious when he explained to CNN why death row needed an injection of humor: "We have a situation back there where you have guys that are actually innocent - I am not one of them. Jokes are needed back there, something to ease the tension." However, Knight betrayed no tension when he said: "Death is my punishment. I've accepted that, that's what's gonna happen. If you got to go, go with a smile."

Amarillo lawyer Warren L. Clark saw no humor in Knight's case when he served as the special prosecutor handling the inmate's appeals from Randall County. "I saw a brutal double homicide is what I saw."

Clark says Doreen Hawk, the creator of Knight’s profile, wasn’t even aware of crucial facts about the case. Clark has spoken with several of Knight's MySpace "friends" who have posted jokes on Knight’s profile. Clark has reported that a majority of the friends are female, nice, adamantly anti-death penalty and “seem to have no idea exactly what Knight did to the Werner couple.” According to Clark, “one friend said she misunderstood what the request was for and that she thought it was for innocent death row inmates.”

Even though Knight claims not to want anything from the joke contest, his own words suggest he’s seeking media attention. Said Knight: “Hopefully The Houston Chronicle and other media will print it," referring to the winning joke. On June 25, a KDOL-Texas radio show called "All Life Is Precious" plans to do a live “shout out” to Knight. Randall County district attorney James Farren says the joke contest is just another attempt by Knight to hurt someone else. "I think it demonstrates that Patrick Knight has no regard for human life, even his own," Farren said.

Vastly different artistic responses have also been generated by the controversy. Tim Jones, a playwright and writing program graduate of Second City Chicago, plays up the controversy to satirical effect. His MySpace profile, which uses a mock 14-year-old persona named Tem Jhoenz, includes authentic letters that his fake persona has written and mailed to real prisoners (including Knight and Paris Hilton). So believable his persona, Knight’s profile rejected his “friendship” invitation because Hawk took him to be a minor.

Meanwhile, death penalty opponent and rapper Capital-"X" has recorded a song entitled "Dead Man Laughing" about Knight's death row incarceration. The song title is an allusion to Knight’s MySpace profile, itself a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Helen Prejean book "Dead Man Walking", of which a film of the same name starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn was made by Tim Robbins. The song is now featured on Knight’s profile.

References

External links

* [http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/knight.jpgOffender Information, Texas Department of Criminal Justice]
* [http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/knightpatricklast.htm Last Statement, Texas Department of Criminal Justice]
* [http://www.todesstrafe-usa.de/death_penalty/voices_tx_knight.htm A letter from Death Row, by Patrick Knight.]
* [http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511072007?open&of=ENG-USA Amnesty International, call for urgent action on Patrick Knights case (153/07)]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286622,00.html FoxNews, 'Inmate set for death plans joke as last words']