Tennessee man is executed for killing his wife and her 2 sons, 3 years after last-minute reprieve
Smith, 75, was pronounced dead after a lethal injection of the barbiturate pentobarbital. The 75-year-old had maintained his innocence, and in a lengthy series of final words, in part said, 'Somebody needs to tell the governor the justice system doesn't work.' Witnesses also heard Smith say, 'I didn't kill her.'
In a recent interview with AP, he primarily wanted to discuss the ways he felt the court system had failed him.
He was convicted of fatally stabbing and shooting Judith Smith, 13-year-old Jason Burnett and 16-year-old Chad Burnett at their Nashville, Tennessee, home on Oct. 1, 1989. He was sentenced to death by a Davidson County jury in July 1990 for the murders.
In 2022, a Davidson County Criminal Court judge denied requests to reopen his case despite some new evidence that the DNA of an unknown person was on one of the murder weapons. The judge wrote that the evidence of Smith's guilt was overwhelming and the DNA evidence did not tip the scales in his favor.
Two of Smith's co-workers testified at trial that he had solicited them to kill Judith Smith, and he had a history of threats and violence against her and the boys. Smith had also taken out insurance policies on all three victims. And one of the child victims could be heard yelling what prosecutors said was, 'Frank, no!' in the background of a 911 call on the night of the murder. Frank is Smith's middle name and the one that he used regularly.
The siblings of Judith Smith, Mike Robirds and Terri Osborne, spoke to reporters after the execution. Osborne said they miss the sound of their sister's voice on the other end of the phone, planning Chad's driving lessons and the 'pure joy of hearing Jason's laughter.'
She said the tragic deaths are a reminder of the devastating consequences of domestic violence.
'We know it is an incredibly hard thing to do to leave a spouse who is abusing, but pray that this case becomes a call to action, encouraging those in danger to seek help before it's too late,' Osborne said.
Darlene Kimbrough, who knows Smith through her visits to another inmate on death row over the past decade, said she sent him a card recently. It just said, ''I hope you know that you are loved,'' Kimbrough said. Unexpectedly, she received a letter in reply on Tuesday, thanking her. She thinks that Smith was at peace with the idea of death, she said.
Tennessee executions have been on hold for five years, first because of COVID-19 and then because of missteps by the Tennessee Department of Corrections.
Smith came within minutes of execution in 2022 before he was saved by a surprise reprieve from Republican Gov. Bill Lee. It later turned out that the lethal drugs that were going to be used had not been properly tested. A yearlong investigation turned up numerous other problems with Tennessee executions.
The correction department issued new guidelines for executions in December. The new execution manual contains a single page on the lethal injection chemicals with no specific directions for testing the drugs. It also removes the requirement that the drugs come from a licensed pharmacist. Smith's attorney, Amy Harwell, has said, 'It's as if, having been caught breaking their own rules, TDOC decided, 'Let's just not have rules.''
The new protocols are the subject of a lawsuit filed by Smith and other death row inmates. A trial in that case is set for next January.
www.thehotline.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Man charged with the murder of prominent rapper acquitted in surprise verdict
A Tennessee man has been acquitted of charges that he organised the daytime ambush killing of rapper Young Dolph at a Memphis bakery in November 2021. The shooting stunned the music world and the city he called home, receiving mass press coverage at the time. On August 21, a jury found Hernandez Govan, 45, not guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in connection with the killing of Young Dolph, whose real name was Adolph Thornton Jr. Prosecutors did not accuse Govan of firing the shots but argued he directed the gunmen who carried out the attack. The jury rejected that theory despite testimony from one of the admitted shooters, who claimed Govan hired him and arranged the hit. Central to the prosecution's case was the testimony of Cornelius Smith Jr., who admitted being one of the two men who opened fire on Dolph. Smith told jurors that Govan recruited him to 'do the hits,' provided weapons, and tipped him off that the rapper would be in Memphis for his annual Thanksgiving turkey giveaway. But Govan's attorney, Manny Arora, cast doubt on Smith's credibility, describing him as an unreliable witness motivated to cooperate in hopes of securing a lighter sentence. Arora also questioned the integrity of the police investigation and the strength of evidence drawn from cellphone communications between Govan, Smith, and others. 'Not one of those messages directly incriminates my client,' Arora argued, telling jurors the state failed to tie Govan to the crime beyond Smith's word. Govan chose not to testify in his own defense. Young Dolph was killed on November 17, 2021, when two gunmen opened fire outside Makeda's Homemade Cookies, a bakery he frequently visited. According to investigators, the shooters fled in a white Mercedes-Benz. A medical examiner's report later concluded Dolph was struck about 20 times. The Memphis native was more than a rapper; he was an independent label owner, producer, and philanthropist admired locally for his charitable work. He was in the city to distribute Thanksgiving turkeys when the shooting occurred. Smith has previously testified against Justin Johnson, identified as the second gunman. Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in 2024 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, along with additional sentences for related charges. Prosecutors have linked the killing to a long-simmering feud between Dolph and associates of Cocaine Muzik Group, now known as Collective Music Group, a rival record label founded by Memphis rapper Yo Gotti. Smith testified that Anthony 'Big Jook' Mims – Yo Gotti's brother and a key figure at the label – put out a $100,000 bounty on Dolph and smaller rewards for artists affiliated with Dolph's label, Paper Route Empire. Mims himself was shot and killed outside a Memphis restaurant in January 2024. More Trending Smith previously suggested that Mims, not Govan, was the one who hired him, and he admitted receiving tens of thousands of dollars in cash through his attorney after Dolph's murder. Smith still faces charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the case. He has pleaded not guilty and has not yet gone to trial. Govan's acquittal does not end the legal fallout from Young Dolph's death, which remains one of the most high-profile killings in Memphis in recent years. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. View More » MORE: Menendez brothers parole hearing: Everything you need to know about the case MORE: Iconic rock band warn they'll 'never play many cities again' in devastating tour update MORE: Britney Spears dances to ex Justin Timberlake's song in latest bizarre Instagram post
Western Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Appeal court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost the president more than 515 million dollars (£382 million) and rock his property empire, was 'excessive'. The president, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory', adding: 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State.' After finding that Mr Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay 355 million dollars (£263 million) in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped 515 million dollars. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organisation executives including Mr Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr — now exceeds 527 million dollars (£391 million), with interest. Judge Arthur Engoron (Shannon Stapleton/AP) 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Judge Engoron had also imposed other punishments, such as banning Mr Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during the appeal, and Mr Trump was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a 175 million dollar (£130 million) bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Judge Engoron imposed in its entirety while leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Mr Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last autumn. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating and staggering fraud'. The president and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a months-long trial, Mr Trump said in January last year that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by Ms James and Judge Engoron, who are both Democrats. The Justice Department has subpoenaed Ms James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. New York attorney general Letitia James (Yuki Iwamura/AP) Her lawyer Abbe D Lowell has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Mr Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements were not deceptive because they came with disclaimers noting they had not been audited. The defence also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, low estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, the president's lawyers said many of the case's allegations were too old, a claim they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defence also says Ms James misused a consumer protection law to sue Mr Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Mr Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state says the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others boost their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rested on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comported with Mr Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favourable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was one of several legal obstacles for Mr Trump as he campaigned, won and started a second term as president.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Edinburgh Rape Crisis: Scandal-hit centre 'stops recruiting trans staff' after Supreme Court ruling
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... A rape crisis centre that became embroiled in controversy over its trans-inclusive policies has changed its recruitment practices. Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERRC) previously actively encouraged trans women to apply for women-only roles at the organisation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre on Caremont Crescent | Google Maps Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman, resigned as chief executive of ERCC after a report criticised its failure to provide women-only spaces. Now, following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment stating the legal definition of 'sex' as biological sex, ERRC's most recent job adverts explicitly exclude trans women. Susan Smith, of For Women Scotland, said the grassroots gender critical group was 'pleased' the ERCC was being so specific in the recent advert. 'In the past, they have openly encouraged trans-identifying men to apply and, of course, hired Mridul Wadhwa as CEO,' Ms Smith said. 'We hope this will give women confidence that, going forward, they can be assured of a female support worker.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Organisations are allowed to exclude men from applying for jobs under schedule nine of the Equality Act 2010. Adverts for women-only roles will routinely state this exemption. But some employers, such as ERCC, would use 'women' to include males who identify as women. ERCC's most recent advert for a role of survivor engagement worker says 'all our roles require staff to fall within the legal definition of a woman'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Smith added: 'It's a welcome shift, especially as ten years ago Wadhwa gave evidence to the women and equalities committee in Westminster and said that schedule nine should be scrapped.' A review of ERCC services was commissioned after an employment tribunal found that a councillor, Roz Adams, had been unfairly dismissed after stating that women who used the service should know the sex of the staff supporting them. Wadhwa was identified by the employment judge as the 'invisible hand' behind a 'heresy hunt' against staff espousing gender-critical views. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: "This job ad suggests that news of the For Women Scotland judgment from the Supreme Court has finally landed at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The damning judgment against ERCC in rape counsellor Roz Adam's employment tribunal should have been enough to force change, but seemingly it has taken a ruling from the UK's highest court for the centre to undertake female-only hiring practices to support for the traumatised women it serves. "Advertising jobs that are open only to women is standard across the women's sector, but ERCC previously acted as if 'woman' could include men who claimed to be women. 'It's hardly controversial to say female victims of male violence should not be faced with men in what they are told will be a male-free space.' Ms McAnena added: "It remains to be seen whether this change in how jobs are advertised is reflected in ERCC's overall service, which up til now has failed to centre the needs of vulnerable women." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Scottish Government is expected to publish guidance on single-sex spaces for organisations in Scotland in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. There is as yet no date for the publication of the advice.
