by Frank Knaack, Executive Director

Under both Alabama and federal law, the government can take and keep your cash, your car, or your house – even if you are never charged with a crime. This program, known as civil asset forfeiture, turns the fundamental American principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head and has no place in Alabama.

Thanks to legislation introduced by Senator Orr (SB 213) and Representative Mooney (HB 287), this abusive practice may soon end here in Alabama.

Originally sold to the public as a tool for taking the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins, civil asset forfeiture has strayed far from its alleged purpose. In practice, drug kingpins are rarely the target: as our report with the Southern Poverty Law Center found, in half of the cases the amount of cash forfeited was $1,372 or less. The average amount of $1,372 is often less than the typical cost of hiring an attorney to challenge the seizure in court.

That’s not the most troubling finding. In 25% of the civil forfeiture cases we reviewed, there was not a corresponding criminal charge. Think about that – one in every four civil asset forfeiture cases involved the government taking and keeping a person’s property who was never even charged with a crime. In fact, in  2015 alone, local and state government entities kept at least $670,000 from property owners who were never changed with a crime.

It took some digging to learn all of this. Under current law, the government is not required to report what they have taken to a centralized database, so in order to gather data for our report, we had to write a computer program, purchase thousands of dollars worth of court records, and spend hundreds of hours reviewing them one by one. What they did with that money remains a mystery, because of the 138 agencies that were sent open records requests, only one responded with information about expenditures from its forfeiture account. Most agencies didn’t respond at all.

How did we get into this mess? It’s all about incentives.

Under Alabama law, law enforcement keeps up to 100% of the proceeds from forfeited property.

Under the federal program, Alabama law enforcement can keep up to 80% of the proceeds. Between 2000 and 2013, Alabama law enforcement agencies kept over $75 million in property, and, as is the case with the Alabama programs, none of that required a warrant or indictment, much less a criminal conviction.

Between state and federal programs, Alabama law enforcement raked in over $5 million in 2015 alone.  

Law enforcement should not be put in a position where they appear to value funding their budget over the protection of individual rights.

Thanks to Senator Orr and Representative Mooney, we have a very simple solution. Their legislation would:

  • Require that the forfeiture process occur within the criminal case. This legislation would ensure the government proves that the individual whose property was taken was actually convicted of a crime, and that the property seized was the product of, or that it facilitated, that crime. This places the burden back where it belongs – on the state
  • Protect innocent property owners. This legislation would create a process in which property owners can promptly challenge a seizure and/or assert that they did not know or consent to the use of their property in an alleged crime.
  • Bring transparency to the forfeiture process. This legislation would require annual, centralized reporting of all seizures and forfeitures and what law enforcement agencies spend forfeiture proceeds on.
  • Restricts the ability to abuse the federal forfeiture programs. This legislation would prohibit Alabama law enforcement from receiving proceeds from federal forfeiture actions.

This legislation is a win-win. Criminal forfeiture protects innocent Alabama property owners and leaves in place the tools law enforcement needs to hold those who commit crimes accountable.

by Frank Knaack, Executive Director

Earlier today the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee voted to enhance public safety, strengthen our economy, and give people a second chance to make an honest living.

SB 198 (Sen. Singleton), and its House counterpart, HB 257 (Rep. Givan), would prohibit a state or local government employer from asking an applicant about their criminal history until a conditional offer of employment is made. A safeguard in the bill would enable the government employer to withdraw the job offer if the applicant’s criminal conviction is directly related to the job. Further, the bill establishes clear criteria for state agencies to consider during the screening process, which would better protect the agencies from claims of discrimination under Title VII.

Why should Alabama government employers ban the box? Because it improves the public sector’s ability to recruit the best and brightest, strengthens Alabama’s economy, helps make our communities safer, better ensures a second chance for Alabamians who have already paid their debt to society, reduces the criminal justice system’s disproportionate impact on people of color, protects Alabama from having to hire an individual whose criminal conviction is directly related to the job, and helps protect state employers from claims of discrimination.

Many of America’s largest companies, including Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Starbucks, Koch Industries, and Facebook, recognize that banning the box is good for business. As Koch Industries General Counsel Mark Holden wrote last year, “For employers seeking the best talent, it makes sense for a company to consider all factors, including any prior criminal record, in the context of an applicant’s other life experiences. We are in a global competition for the best talent period; not the best talent with or without a record.” Our state and local government employers should view their hiring practices in the same light.

As the National Employment Law Project notes, when an individual with a criminal record has a job, they will contribute more to the tax base, purchase more goods, and is less likely to commit a new crime, thus reducing the amount of money that state and local governments must spend on their criminal justice systems. It is estimated that our nation’s economy loses between $78 and $87 billion each year because of lost output caused by criminal record-related barriers. To strengthen our economy, Alabama lawmakers should support this bill.

In addition to being a sensible business practice, banning the box will also make our communities safer. Alabama has approximately 21,000 people in its prisons, and another 11,000 in its jails. The vast majority of those individuals will be released and return to their communities. To reduce the recidivism rate, the Department of Justice has identified three key elements to successful re-entry into our communities. One of these key elements is helping these individuals find and keep a job. This legislation is a first step toward realizing a key element to reducing recidivism and making our communities safer.

It will also make our communities more fair. Under current law, an otherwise fully qualified applicant can be denied employment long after that applicant has completed their sentence. This practice places counterproductive hurdles in front of individuals seeking to rebuild their lives and provide for their families. Denying a person’s application without considering their qualifications or rehabilitation prevents people who have completed their sentences from getting a fair chance at a fresh start.

Because African Americans are disproportionately caught up in our criminal justice system, they are disproportionately affected when seeking employment. For example, while African Americans and whites use marijuana at roughly equal rates, in 2016 African Americans were over 4.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Alabama. Those individuals will be disproportionately impacted when filling out a job application that includes a criminal history box. This bill offers an opportunity to begin to address the long-term consequences of a criminal justice system that disproportionately affects African Americans.

To protect government employers (and taxpayers), under this legislation a government employer would be permitted to withdraw the offer of employment after learning of the prospective employee’s criminal conviction background if the prospective employee has a conviction that “is directly related to the position of employment sought.” For example, this provision protects a state employer from being forced to hire a convicted embezzler to keep its books.

Finally, by balancing public safety concerns with a sensible approach to hiring, this legislation may help to insulate government employers from claims of discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a guidance document for entities covered by Title VII, including state and local governments, to help eliminate unlawful discrimination in the employment hiring process. As outlined in the guidance document, an employer must show that the selection criteria use or selection procedures are “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Specifically related to an applicant’s criminal record, the guidance says that the individualized screening process should consider “at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job” or otherwise comply with the EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. This legislation establishes clear criteria for government employers to consider during the screening process when evaluating a person’s prior criminal record, which will better protect government employers from claims of discrimination under Title VII.

SB 198 now heads to the Senate floor.

This legislation is a win-win. It makes us safer, strengthens our economy, better ensures that Alabamians are judged on their merit, not their mistakes, and protects government employers.

by Leah Nelson, Alabama Appleseed Researcher

It was a “harebrained theory” from the start. That’s what a former Houston County assistant district attorney with knowledge of the case against James Vibbert says, anyway.

“[B]ut we didn’t dismiss cases in the DA’s office when Doug Valeska was there. You weren’t allowed to, unless he wanted to dismiss the case,” the former insider said. “‘Try it and lose,’ was pretty much what we were told.”

So that’s what they did. And Vibbert, a small business owner who faced criminal charges and the attempted civil forfeiture of more than $25,000 that he needed to keep his business running, paid the price.

James “Jamey” Vibbert is the unlikely protagonist of an object lesson about the way civil asset forfeiture can be abused by ambitious law enforcement agents and unscrupulous prosecutors. Past president of the Dothan/Houston County Rotary Club, former member of the board of directors and three-time “Ambassador of the Year” for the Dothan Area Chamber of Commerce, a man whose Facebook “likes” include “Conservatives Against a Liberal Agenda,” he personifies what many in Alabama’s fiercely conservative Wiregrass region might consider an ideal. He’s a small business owner and entrepreneur who got his start in healthcare systems and payroll solutions before turning to the sale of high-end imported cars; a Huntsville, Ala. native and Crimson Tide fan with two adult children and a young daughter he dotes on.

Sitting in the back office of Bavarian Imports, the dealership he opened after fallout from his disastrous encounter with Houston County’s civil asset forfeiture machine forced him to close his previous shop, Vibbert struggles to find words to describe his experience.  

“It just tarnished. It just knocked it off,” he says. “If it had even been a little cloudy, something that I may have done, that I crossed the line a little bit, maybe I deserved it. No. I didn’t cross the line a single bit. I didn’t do the first thing that was wrong, not even close. That’s what’s so hard about this, it was nothing.”

But it was also everything.

It all started in 2015 when a young man with cash to spare started buying cars from Vibbert’s dealership, CSI Auto Sales. The buyer didn’t have a license, but car dealers often sell cars to individuals who cannot legally drive them – for instance, disabled persons who buy cars that will be driven by others, or elderly individuals who have let their licenses lapse and are buying cars for children or grandchildren.

The first time he bought a car from Vibbert, the buyer said he wanted the title in the name of a person he said was his girlfriend’s mother. Vibbert gave him the paperwork. He also advised the buyer to find a trustworthy lienholder to maintain financial control of any vehicle he bought but didn’t control the title to – that way, if he and his girlfriend got in a fight, the lienholder could stop her from making off with the car. The buyer thanked Vibbert, and did just that.

Not long after that, the buyer was arrested for an alleged drug crime. Alleging they had been purchased with drug money, Lt. Demetrius Bogan of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency apparently looked into having the cars forfeited and learned that the titles were not in the buyer’s name and the cars had third-party lienholders.

In 2004, Houston County District Attorney Doug Valeska sent a memo to all law enforcement personnel under his jurisdiction, telling them that his office expected 20 percent of the proceeds of any item seized via civil asset forfeiture, a legal process by which property believed to be connected to a crime can be “prosecuted” and become the property of the state. The memo, which Alabama Appleseed obtained on Jan. 11 through an open records request asking for all documentation about the Houston and Henry County District Attorney’s civil asset forfeiture policy, states that law enforcement agencies are responsible for paying off any liens on forfeited vehicles, and warning them to look into liens before seeking forfeiture.

When Bogan checked the title on the two vehicles he seized from Vibbert’s buyer, he discovered that it would cost his employer as much as the cars were worth – about $25,000 – to have them forfeited. Rather than let things go, he began to investigate  Vibbert. The prosecutor struggled to charge him: as he  told the Dothan Eagle, he “kind of had to do some serious research in the statutes to figure out exactly how it violated the law. … It’s the first time that I know of we’ve ever charged anybody under these provisions.”

The prosecutor likened Vibbert’s alleged crime to money laundering. “The vehicles were being bought with drug money, and [Vibbert] knew they were being bought with drug money,” he told the Eagle. “He’s falsifying titles to protect a drug dealer’s vehicles from government seizure.”

But Vibbert didn’t know. In his years as a car salesman, he’s had customers pay him in cash and title the car to third parties for any number of legitimate reasons – as an example, he cites a Mobile-based hairdresser who used the cash he received in tips to buy a flashy car for his mother. He also makes a practice of advising young people buying cars for their significant others to add lienholders, to protect the buyer from losing their property due to a bad breakup. All kinds of people buy high-end used automobiles, and Vibbert has learned not to judge or make assumptions without good cause. He just warns his buyers to be careful.

Unfortunately, the system that prosecuted him hadn’t learned that lesson – least of all former Houston County District Attorney Doug Valeska, who earned a bar complaint from a former Alabama Supreme Court justice and a national reputation for abusing his power before retiring in 2016.

According to a former prosecutor who worked in his office, Valeska refused to allow dismissal of Vibbert’s case even when it became clear that the charges were baseless, and the forfeiture proceedings unwinnable.

Vibbert’s first clue that something was amiss came when he noticed that about $25,000 was missing from his bank account. He called his bank, which said it would look into what had happened and get back to him. Two days later, Bogan showed up at his dealership and demanded to talk with him.

Vibbert was at a car show in Tallahassee when his wife Kayla called and put Bogan on the phone. Vibbert recalls the conversation vividly.

“He said ‘I’ve got some advice for you,’ he says. ‘You better leave right there, and you better come back to Alabama, and you better hope that you don’t get pulled over by the police there, ‘cause I’m gonna let you set in jail for 10 days till I come and get you.’ And he says, ‘Oh by the way,’ he says, ‘I’m the one that took that money out of your account.”  

Bogan had gained control of the money under Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow individual police officers to seize cash and other items that they believe are connected to criminal activity.

Most commonly, cash is seized when it’s found in a vehicle or home together with drugs or other alleged evidence of criminal activity. Forfeiture is then sought in civil court, where Alabama law requires prosecutors to prove to a judge’s “reasonable satisfaction” – a nebulous standard that is approximately equivalent to “more likely than not” – that it was the fruits of, or connected to, a crime.

Unusually, Vibbert’s was taken from his bank account, because Bogan and the District Attorney’s office believed it might be connected to drug dealing in some fashion.

Ultimately, a judge disagreed – but not before Vibbert lost his business, and, in many ways, his sense of himself as a pillar of his small, conservative, close-knit Wiregrass community.

There was a flaw in the first indictment against Vibbert, so the judge threw it out the day the trial was set to begin. The District Attorney’s office charged Vibbert again, arrested him again, and insisted on proceeding to trial.

In the meantime, Vibbert hired attorneys and set about attempting to get his money back. It couldn’t happen fast enough. He had intended to use the $25,000 the state seized to purchase new inventory, and now that couldn’t happen. Lenders suspended lines of credit. People stopped buying from him; some even backed out of partially completed transactions after the Dothan Eagle featured a story describing the charges against him. Vibbert’s payroll solutions and workers compensation company, which predated his car dealership, lost about 50 percent of its contracts because no one wanted to trust their finances to an alleged money launderer. Overall, he estimates the ordeal set him back about $300,000 in lost business and expenses.

The criminal trial was over almost before it started. Vibbert’s lawyers took the unusual step of requesting a bench trial, meaning the judge decided the case instead of a jury. The prosecutor’s case fell apart: at one point, the judge interrupted to observe that he himself had recently purchased a car, titled it to his son, and had the title sent to his own home address rather than his son’s – facts similar to those on which the charges against Vibbert were based. “Is that falsifying a title?” the judge asked the prosecutor.

“Possibly,” came the reply. “I would need a little more information.”

In the end, the judge ruled in Vibbert’s favor. In addition to finding him not guilty of all the charges against him, the judge made a clear statement about what he thought of the forfeiture proceedings.

“The Court is not willing to extend forfeiture laws to businesses who are not involved in the drug trade. Otherwise, you are going to draw in car dealers, rental car companies, etc. There would have to be more, a pattern of [sic] practice for the car dealer bending the law to assist drug dealers. This is but one example. But one example. And I am not sure that Mr. Vibbert fits that,” he said.

He warned Vibbert not to sell that particular buyer any more cars, and sent him home.

Off the record, the prosecutor apologized to Vibbert and expressed relief that the proceeding was over. That was January 2016.

Vibbert started to put his life back together. Based on the judge’s words, he was sure his money would be returned to him any day, but months passed, and he received no check. On March 25, 2016, his lawyer sent a letter to Valeska. He observed that other individuals associated with the case – including the buyer, who in addition to allegedly participating in a title fraud scheme was also allegedly in possession of a large quantity of methamphetamine when Bogan stopped him – were not charged with crimes, while “the State and Agent Bogan chose to pursue the rare and speculative charges against Vibbert.” He noted that Vibbert’s bond – a total of $50,000 over the course of two arrests – was shockingly high given the charges and the fact that Vibbert had no prior criminal history.

“It is my opinion that the motivation for pursuing the charges and the civil forfeiture against Vibbert was unfortunately a desire to take his money,” he wrote. “I believe it is now clear that the State has a duty to cease this proceeding.”

Valeska disagreed, and took several more months and a judge’s order to force the state to return Vibbert’s money. He lost about a third of it to attorney fees, and used the rest to reinvest in his foundering businesses.

Things are getting better, but they’re still bad. “It’s very difficult for me today to call on companies in this area and get them to do business with me,” Vibbert says. “My competitors, the first thing they’re going to say is, ‘Let me pull up this thing on the internet here. He launders money.’”

“The internet,” he says, “will never go away.”

Though he’s back on his feet, Vibbert’s life was permanently changed by the experience. An extroverted, highly social man his whole life, he’s withdrawn to a back office to avoid problems with customers who still associate his face with alleged criminal activity. He and his family rarely attend church anymore, and he’s withdrawn from many neighborhood and social activities. He would like to have the record of his arrest expunged, but he dreads going to the local jail to get fingerprinted (a required part of the expungement process), fearful that someone will see him there and assume he’s been arrested again.

“It’s still a nightmare. It hasn’t ended. You would think that it would end, but the problem you have is, you’ve got people who just don’t know the truth, and they assume, ‘ok, it’s this.’ And I worked so hard to build what I had,” Vibbert says. “And the thing is, how they can do that, and get away with it? And they drug me through it. When they finally found out the truth, they didn’t stop. They didn’t stop! It was just like, ‘We don’t care.’”

 

For many low-income tenants who live in substandard living conditions or face eviction, access to justice is often elusive.

This often occurs because landlords and tenants are not entering the courtroom on a level playing field. Before their case is even considered, the deck is stacked against low-income tenants.

In fact, while 90 percent of landlords throughout the country are represented by attorneys, an overwhelming 90 percent of tenants go through their case without any legal representation.

In order to ensure greater access to justice for low-income tenants in our state, Alabama Appleseed, along with Legal Services Alabama, recently filed an amici curiae brief in support of tenants’ rights in a case before the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. The case is Morrow v. Pake. The University of Alabama School of Law’s Civil Law Clinic represented the tenant pro bono in the trial court, and Paula W. Hinton and William M. Logan from Winston & Strawn LLP are assisting pro bono with the appeal.

The facts of the case are sadly all-too-familiar for low-income families in Alabama.

In Tuscaloosa, a mother and her children moved into a single-family home. Under the lease, the landlord tried to relieve himself of responsibility for basic needs in the home such as ensuring working electrical and plumbing systems. Soon after moving in, the living conditions became dangerous, including defective smoke detectors and faulty and failing electrical wiring. The landlord refused to address these issues. Desperate to keep her family safe, the tenant attempted to make some improvements on her own. After more attempts to get the landlord to make the necessary repairs, the landlord moved to evict the tenant. Instead of fighting the landlord in court, the tenant moved her family into a new home.

Once the tenant settled into her new residence, she filed a complaint seeking to hold the landlord accountable for his violations of the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) (which includes a right to decent housing); his breaches of the rental agreement; and his unjust enrichment from the tenant’s improvements to the property.

The lower court ruled in favor of the landlord, who argued that the tenant was legally obligated to raise her claims during the landlord’s eviction proceeding, and therefore was barred from later raising these claims.

Yet the URLTA clearly does not require a tenant to bring her claims during the eviction proceeding. In fact, the law says the tenant “may” bring the claims during the eviction process – which means that the tenant then may also raise them at a later date.

Moreover, the purpose of the Act is to streamline the eviction process and to keep the focus on resolving the possession issue – and not necessarily other claims either party may have against one another. This is evident by the requirement that the tenant respond to the eviction action within 7 days. It is unfathomable to expect a tenant—who is on the verge of being uprooted from their home—to also obtain counsel and file a detailed counterclaim in such a period of immediate hardship.

In order to ensure equal access to justice and basic fairness for all tenants—regardless of their financial status—the Court of Appeals must uphold the right of tenants to bring counterclaims against landlords in later proceedings.

In addition, the State must provide more and adequate resources for civil legal aid programs throughout the state—including the Volunteers Lawyers Programs, Legal Services Alabama, and the other clinics and service providers—who provide low-income Alabamians, including tenants, with vital access to legal representation.

Especially as we enter the holiday season, it is essential that we protect the most vulnerable among us and uphold the rights of all Alabamians so they can enjoy equal access to justice.

The United States Constitution is clear. In criminal cases, the accused have a right to a lawyer. Our Constitution affords this protection in order to ensure that individuals are not wrongfully or unfairly deprived of their liberty.

Yet there is question as to whether this fundamental 6th Amendment right is being upheld in Alabama.

Throughout the South, states and districts are being sued for their failure to comply with the Constitution.

In Louisiana, indigent defendants have asserted that their constitutional right to counsel is being denied, which has led to a legal battle over the state’s failure to provide adequate funding and resources for the state public defender service.

Similarly, indigent defendants in South Carolina recently filed a class action lawsuit against certain jurisdictions for failure to provide legal representation.

Horrifically, one plaintiff in the South Carolina case, a homeless man, has been arrested or given a citation 270 times for the same offense, yet not once has he had an attorney represent him in court proceedings.

These cases demonstrate why we need to know if, how, and to what extent Alabama is ensuring access to counsel for indigent defendants.

Appleseed previously conducted a study of the indigent defense services in four Alabama judicial circuits from 2001-2002. This report has been widely cited for the insight it provided on the practices of indigent defense counsel and the outcomes of those cases.

But, there have been no such studies conducted since then, and there is no comprehensive report on indigent representation throughout Alabama.

In order to understand how and whether the right to counsel is being protected today, Appleseed will soon begin documenting and assessing the quality of indigent defense services in a wide range of counties.

Appleseed’s staff has been traveling to all corners of the state to engage with those in the community who are charged with the duty of ensuring that indigent defendants receive legal representation. We have been meeting with these stakeholders, including public defenders, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and other key Alabamians to hear their views on how the system is currently functioning and what aspects of indigent defense they believe we most need to research.

Alabamians care deeply about protecting the Constitution. This is why Appleseed will conduct this study, and then use the findings to collaborate with partners to ensure that all indigent defendants in the state have access to adequately resourced, quality legal representation.

Montgomery, AL – The following statement is by Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed, regarding Governor Ivey’s decision to award $1.3 million to establish the Alabama Drug Enforcement Task Force:

“After more than 45 years of the War on Drugs, one thing is clear – we cannot prosecute our way out of drug use. Approximately one in every seven people in Alabama’s already overcrowded prisons are there because of a drug offense, yet drugs remain cheap and widely available. Doubling down on this failed strategy is an expensive and ineffective approach.

Alabamians would be much better served by redirecting money to treatment programs and other public health based responses that have been shown to reduce drug use and save lives. We urge Governor Ivey to reconsider her decision.”

On Thursday, October 19, the state of Alabama executed Torrey Twayne McNabb by lethal injection, using a secret execution protocol that has repeatedly resulted in botched procedures.

The execution did not go well. After reassuring his family that he was not afraid, Mr. McNabb was injected with midazolam, a valium-like sedative, and executioners twice conducted a “consciousness check,” brushing Mr. McNabb’s eyelid, calling his name, and pinching his shoulder. Mr. McNabb responded in a purposeful-looking way to both checks, moving his hand, raising his arm, and grimacing, but the execution proceeded anyway.

Afterwards, Commissioner Jefferson S. Dunn told reporters executioners had followed the protocol “as it is written” – an unverifiable claim, since Alabama has refused to release details of its protocol, despite multiple public records requests and current litigation by a local minister. Dunn said he was “confident” that McNabb was “more than unconscious” when he moved, characterizing his movements as “involuntary” and saying they are common occurrences at executions.

Indeed they are. Ronald Bert Smith, Jr. heaved and coughed for 13 minutes of his December 2016 execution. And purposeful-looking movement was observed during the January 2016 execution of Christopher Brooks, who reportedly opened one eye, and the June 2017 execution of Robert Melson, whose hands and arms reportedly quivered and shook against his restraints.

These facts alone should be enough to persuade Gov. Kay Ivey and legislators that Alabama’s death penalty process is broken. But they are not the only reasons. In 2015, judges ordered the release of three men – Anthony Ray Hinton, Montez Spradley, and William Ziegler – from Alabama’s death row due to evidence of innocence or prosecutorial misconduct, errors, and abuses egregious enough to warrant reversal. Including Hinton, eight Alabama death row prisoners have been exonerated in the modern death penalty era. That many of them spent decades behind bars should give pause to supporters of attempts, including 2017’s so-called “Fair Justice Act,” to shorten the time between sentencing and execution.

As far back as 2006, the American Bar Association’s Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Team, consisting of eight distinguished Alabama attorneys, made a variety of specific recommendations for reform. Recognizing that Alabama’s death penalty process ensured neither accuracy nor fairness, these Alabama experts called for a temporary moratorium on executions while the state worked to address them. So far, only one of these, calling for an end to the practice of allowing elected judges to override a jury’s recommendation of life without parole in favor of a death sentence, has been enacted.

Before Alabama even considers moving forward with a new execution, it must implement the Assessment Team’s recommendations and empanel a new commission to review emerging issues, including the demonstrably problematic execution protocol. In devising a new commission, Alabama lawmakers could look to the example of Oklahoma, which implemented a moratorium and empaneled a commission to review its capital punishment system in 2016, after a disastrously botched execution, and revelations of shocking ineptitude and deception by top Department of Corrections officials brought international condemnation and undermined public confidence. Following a year-long investigation, the commission unanimously recommended an extension on the moratorium “until significant reforms are accomplished.”

Alabama’s system suffers from many of the same flaws as Oklahoma’s, including an execution protocol that has resulted in several botched executions; inadequate safeguards against the execution of the innocent; and an over-burdened and under-resourced defense bar.

While Alabamians may disagree on whether we should have a death penalty, we should all agree that if Alabama has a death penalty then the process should be fair and accurate. Currently it fails this basic test.  It is unconscionable that Alabama continues to execute individuals without addressing the fundamental problems with our death penalty process.

My name is Dana Sweeney, and I am the newest addition to the Alabama Appleseed team. Continuing the efforts of many Appleseed advocates before me, I will be working as a statewide organizer to put an end to predatory lending practices in Alabama. I will be driving near and far to connect with Alabamians on this important issue, to build coalitions of active citizens that support fair lending practices, and to hold payday lenders accountable for cynically churning profits out of poverty.

My path to this work (and to this state) has been winding, but fortifying. I did not grow up in Alabama: I grew up in the salt marshes of southeastern Georgia reading books and dreaming of the wide world beyond the small town South. For many years, I imagined travelling to faraway places and living in huge metropolises—New York! Los Angeles! London! Beijing! It seemed to me at the time that those were the places where all the excitement was, but fortunately, my visions of extravagant elsewheres were eventually replaced by a deep sense of rootedness in the Southern spaces where I am from.

When (with the generous support of several scholarship programs) I had the opportunity to attend college, I initially hoped to attend school someplace far from home. I got far, but not that far: in August of 2013, I packed my bags and drove about 400 miles west to a new, unexpected, sweet home: The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

While there, I studied English in the classroom, but the most important lessons of my college career came when learning about, from, and with the communities that I was beginning to call home. I began to see how our communities are haunted by the unconfronted ghosts of our past. I began to see how fear and uncertainty have the potential to steal away the best of ourselves, and to steal us away from each other, too. I began to see how injustice has, in so many ways, calcified into complacent normalcy in Alabama and across the South. But I also began to see something else: that no place changes without people committed to changing it. I began to see that no transformation is possible here but by the hard, patient, loving work of people who refuse to give up on the possibility of a more just Alabama that we can all share in together. I began to see that inequities can only persist when we cease to believe that we have the power to change them.

Putting these realizations into practice, I started working however I could to build supportive communities, to spark needed conversations, and to address issues that I saw around me. My journey has taken me in many different directions over the last several years: I have fought for (and won) student voting rights as a Vote Everywhere Ambassador for the Andrew Goodman Foundation, I have grown a literacy-focused creative writing and poetry performance program serving students across western-central Alabama, I have provided free tax preparation services to low-income communities through Impact Alabama, and I have marched on foot from Selma to Montgomery alongside young civic leaders and Civil Rights Movement veterans alike. My experiences have been varied, but they have a few consistent threads: they are all rooted in my conviction that Alabama can do and be better, all driven by my belief that we are capable of making change and being changed together, and all made possible by working in community with others across generations and difference. These are values and commonalities that I will carry forward into my work with Alabama Appleseed.

I am so excited to listen to, learn from, and be with communities across Alabama as we build a coalition to address the predatory lending crisis in our state. These days, I no longer dream of moving to shining cities far away like I did when I was a kid. Instead, I dream of staying put, of rolling up my sleeves and scrubbing the dirt off the small Southern towns that made me, of revitalizing our communities and building a shared, just, prosperous future right here. That future begins with each of us, but it is up to all of us, and I will be working every day at Appleseed to move us closer toward it together.

My name is Leah Nelson, and I am delighted to join Appleseed. As Researcher, I will be collecting stories, data, and information to turn into white papers, reports, and advocacy material to support Appleseed’s Access to Justice and Fair Schools, Safe Communities campaigns.

I moved to Alabama in 2010 for a two-year fellowship at the Southern Poverty Law Center, where I covered white supremacy, nativism, the Patriot movement, and other forms of extremism for SPLC’s Intelligence Project. As time passed, I felt compelled to stay. I married, started a family, bought a house, picked a college football team to root for, and moved on to a 5-year stint in the Capital Habeas Unit of the Middle District of Alabama Federal Defenders, supporting the appeals of death-sentenced individuals seeking new trials.

In that role, I witnessed the devastating consequences of Alabama’s school-to-prison pipeline, inadequate safety net, and under-resourced indigent defense system. I had clients whose first contact with the justice system came when they were prosecuted in court-like settings for misbehaving in school, and others whose distrust of the criminal justice system – distrust born of experience – ran so deep that they struggled to convey useful information that might have saved them from death row. In the year preceding my departure from the Federal Defenders, two of my clients were executed without ever having their cases reviewed on the merits because Alabama declined to provide them with attorneys in state post-conviction proceedings.

I believe that our democracy functions best when accurate, well-presented information about the world we live in is readily available to lawmakers, the courts, and people of all walks of life. As Alabama Appleseed’s Researcher, I hope to create written materials that will inform policy-making to prevent the kind of injustices my former clients, and too many other Alabamians, suffer.

My name is Phillip Ensler and I am excited to have recently joined Alabama Appleseed as Policy Counsel. In my role, I will provide direction and leadership to advance our policy goals. This includes managing the Access to Justice Campaign to improve access to adequate counsel for indigent clients in criminal and civil cases.

I graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York this past May. Although I am a native New Yorker, coming to Montgomery is like returning home – or as we say down here, Sweet Home Alabama!

My history in Alabama dates back to when I was in college and visited Montgomery, Selma, and Birmingham to see the sacred sites of the Civil Rights Movement. I was humbled and inspired by standing in the very places where Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Rosa Parks, and countless other heroes and foot soldiers had the courage to stand up for a more just and equal Alabama.

Despite the significant progress that has been made, I was also aware that there was still much more to be done. In this spirit, I moved to Montgomery in 2012 to serve as a Teach for America corps member, where I worked to help close the educational achievement gap. My students were just as talented and intelligent as students at any other school, but they were not given the same opportunities to succeed due their racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

My experience in the classroom motivated me to attend law school in order to gain the skills and knowledge to fight to make the law fairer so everyone in Alabama can achieve their full potential. I was committed to returning to Alabama because it was a community that welcomed me with open arms, and it is where I have met some of the most dedicated and passionate people in my life.

After my second year of law school, I worked as a legal intern at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, where I worked on juvenile rights and education issues. And now, I am looking forward to the work Appleseed will do to ensure that more students are receiving the education and opportunities they deserve and do not become just another number in the system of mass incarceration.

We also have much work to do in the area of civil and criminal defense legal services for disadvantaged Alabamians. The words “Equal Justice Under the Law” are engraved on the façade of the United States Supreme Court. Yet in order to fully live up to that democratic principle in Alabama, we must ensure that all citizens have access to adequate lawyers, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Our justice system should not depend on which side has deeper financial pockets.

That is why at Appleseed we will be working with partners throughout the state to increase funding for civil legal services. This will ensure that those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer can continue to have access to legal assistance for vital services such as applying for veterans benefits or seeking to remain in their home in the face of eviction.

On the criminal side, we will similarly work with stakeholders to ensure that indigent criminal defendants receive adequate counsel. The determination of truth and justice in a criminal case should not be predicated on whether a defendant can afford an attorney. At the Innocence Project, where I also did a legal internship, we saw in case after case that defendants were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for decades because they did not have access to adequate counsel during their cases. In order to prevent such injustices in Alabama, we will examine which methods are most effective in upholding indigent defendants’ Constitutional right to counsel. We will then advocate for these best practices to be implemented state-wide.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs ‘down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.’” At Appleseed we are determined to continue that effort for all of Alabama. I am grateful to be a part of such work and I look forward to working with activists, partners, and leaders throughout the state to make it happen.