2/16/08 The articles below appear to reveal what is still going on today. Flo, PAPA
2/15/08 Another Beaumont inmate killed
By FRED DAVIS , The Enterprise
The FBI is investigating the second homicide in three months at the
maximum security U.S. Penitentiary in Beaumont, but the dead inmate’s family is frustrated with the lack of information they’re receiving.
Ronald Joseph, 29, was found unresponsive in his cell Wednesday
morning and pronounced dead 45 minutes later, prison officials said.
The prison remained on lockdown – during which inmates are restricted to their cells – Thursday evening according to a prison dispatcher.
Justice of the Peace Tom Gilliam III said he received preliminary
autopsy results Wednesday evening and early indications were the
Richmond, Va., native was murdered.
“Several things were wrong with the body,” Gillam said.
Gillam said he could not disclose how Joseph died but confirmed there is a “precise cause of death.” Complete autopsy results are two to three weeks away.
Prison officials at Beaumont’s Federal Correctional Complex would
only confirm that an investigation was underway and that information would be released at some point.
Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley, who is located in
Washington D.C., said records indicated Joseph was almost four years into a 10-year prison sentence on drug and gun charges.
Joseph’s family said they’ve tried in vain to get information from
Beaumont prison officials about Joseph.
“I think it’s sad that I lost my son and I can’t get answers from
nobody,” said Leah Crutchfield, Joseph’s mother, who was calling from Richmond, Virginia.
“It’s probably over something they did,” Crutchfield said of the
prison’s role in her son’s death.
Joseph’s sister, Erika Joseph, is baffled as to how her brother died
when the prison was supposed to be on lockdown.
“This never should’ve happened,” Joseph said. “The system failed.”
A press release issued Wednesday by the prison’s public information
office regarding Joseph’s death stated “the institution is on
lockdown status due to a previous unrelated incident.”
That response was nothing new to Crutchfield.
“That prison is always on lockdown. They need to do something,” she
said.
Both women said they hadn’t spoken with Joseph in three weeks, which was highly unusual. They put money in Joseph’s prison account last week and he didn’t call back, which he always does after receiving money from them.
And Erika Joseph said the last conversation she had with her younger
sibling was cryptically prophetic.
“My brother told me if he didn’t get out of there soon he was coming home in a pine box,” the 31-year-old said.
The family had been working on an early release with Joseph’s
attorney in Virginia.
Jennifer Robinson, his attorney, said she was going to look into
filing motions for an early release in March. Robinson said the U.S.
Sentencing Commission passed guidelines in December that would reduce sentences for federal inmates with crack cocaine convictions and she was going to see if Joseph qualified.
Erika Joseph said her brother, who had been transferred from federal
prisons in Atlanta and Terre Haute, Ind., before winding up in Texas,
said the Beaumont prison was especially dangerous compared to the
others.
“He said people were getting stabbed every day,” his mother said.
In fact, on Nov. 28, 2007, Gabriel Rhone, 31, was stabbed to death by
two other inmates. On May 7, 2005, Keith Barnes was stabbed by three other inmates.
Joseph’s death is the sixth homicide at the complex since 1999,
according to The Enterprise archives.
Joseph had been locked up in Beaumont since September 2006, according
to jail records.
Erika said her brother was responsible for the crimes he committed
but should not have paid the price he did.
“We knew he had to do his time, but you’re not supposed to die in
there.”
?The Beaumont Enterprise 2008
2/2008 PAPA research found some interesting information. This came from some reports on the internet search: Makes one wonder if this is still happening????Flo
The U.S. Penitentiary in Beaumont is home to what prisoners call the ?thunderdome.? This moniker, borrowed from the Mad Max fantasy flicks of the 1980s, refers to the place where ?two go in and only one leaves alive,? as the film synopsis puts it ? a place where two men fight to the death.
At USP Beaumont, witnesses claimed that guards paired up rival prisoners in the 15-by-20 ft. recreation cages and let the prisoners go at it. In January 2001, one of the matches was fatal. Prisoners Shannon Wayne Agofsky and Luther Plant were in the ?rec cage? when, according to a Beaumont prison guard?s testimony in July 2004, Agofsky stomped on Plant?s head, which caused his death nearly two hours later. Forensic experts testified that Plant had drowned in his own blood.
While BOP and FBI officials acknowledge that this was the fourth murder at USP Beaumont since its opening in 1997, they refused to disclose any details to the media relating to the three other homicides, such as the name of the victim, date, time or manner of death, even though these types of facts are routinely released to news media in non-prison homicides.
If PAPA recalls, California was having these “galdiator fights” two in and one out.
Federal Inmate’s Death Under Investigation In Texas
Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:48 pm (PST)
Federal Inmate’s Death Under Investigationwww. kfdm.com
Federal Inmate’s Death Under Investigation
Scott Lawrence
February 13, 2008 – 4:08PM
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has ordered an investigation into the death of an inmate at the penitentiary in Beaumont.
According to a news release from the Bureau of Prisons, an inmate was found unresponsive in his cell at about 6:45 a.m. Wednesday. The staff provided medical attention and the inmate was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead at about 7:30 a.m.
An autopsy has been ordered. The Bureau of Prisons isn’t releasing the inmate’s name until it notifies relatives.
The Bureau says the penitentiary is on lockdown because of a previous, unrelated incident.
According to the Bureau, the institution is secure, all inmates have been accounted for and there is no threat to public safety.
2/14/08 PAPA States: Ths Federal Unit at Beaumont, TX seems to be having a problem of abuse and brutality. The FBI needs to be investigating what is going on at this Federal BOP.
8/21/2003
Luther Plant, 37, of Orange, TX, in Federal Unit at Beaumont, TX was beaten and kicked to death by another Inmate. (I thought I had the article that his family sued and won for his wrongful death)
3/27/01
Federal Bureau of Prisons LT Bryan Small, 34, pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing justice stemming from covering up guards’ attacks on prisoners at the U.S. penitentiary in Beaumont, Tx. Small would approve false reports to cover up the attacks. Small, a 16 yr BOP employee, resigend the next day. He was the first BOP employee chaged in attacks at the prison.
Addtional Information from the Internet Search:
8/21/2003
Luther Plant, 37, Orange, TX was beaten and kicked to death by another Inmate by Shannon Wayne Agofsky, 32 of Missouri.
7/2004 Agofsky found guilty in prison death
Associated Press
BEAUMONT, Texas – A prisoner experienced in martial arts was convicted Thursday by a federal jury in the beating death of another inmate at the federal prison in Beaumont.
The jury deliberated 75 minutes before convicting Shannon Wayne Agofsky of Noel, Mo., in the 2001 death of Luther Plant of Orange. The men were in 15-by-20-foot exercise cages at the prison when a guard said Agofsky used his foot to stomp Plant’s head.
Agofsky already was serving life without parole in federal prison for robbing a bank in the southwest Missouri town of Noel. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a conviction in Oklahoma in the death of the bank’s president, Dan Short. Short was abducted from his northwest Arkansas home.
The penalty phase of the trial begins Monday. Agofsky could face the death penalty.
Agofsky had no visible reaction as the verdict was read, the Beaumont Enterprise reported in Friday editions. The jury said Agofsky planned the attack, intended to kill and didn’t act in self-defense, the newspaper reported.
Agofsky has a first-degree black belt in the Hwa Rang Do.
Christopher Matt, a prison guard at the U.S. Penitentiary in Beaumont, testified earlier that he was putting prisoners into the last in a row of six cages when he heard “a thumping and a grunting sound.”
Matt turned in time to see Agofsky, 33, using his foot to stomp another inmate’s head three cages away, Matt said. He called for backup and started shooting the scene with a video camera.
Jurors saw the videotape of Plant as he died, with his arms and legs twitching, his face bloody and mangled.
About two minutes after the beating, prison officials pulled Plant out of the cage. He was pronounced dead less than two hours later.
Forensic pathologist Tommy Brown testified that Plant’s throat was crushed and he drowned in his own blood.
In the prison’s Special Housing Unit, rule-breakers are allowed one hour out of their cells each day. Matt testified that for that hour out, he must determine which prisoners to put in which cages, based on who can get along with whom.
But Matt said he detected no hostility between Agofsky and Plant.
“All I do is work out, wait to leave and hope the cops mess up and let me around some other scumbag so I can test out my hand!”, Agofsky wrote in a November 2000 letter prosecutors presented to the court.
In closing arguments, defense attorney Patrick Black said Matt didn’t see the fight or who started it. Three inmates testified that Plant first attacked Agofsky.
Plant was serving a 15-year sentence at the time of his death for arson and felon in possession of a firearm.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/…printstory.jsp
United States Court of AppealsFifth CircuitF I L E DJuly 28, 2006Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT______________________No. 04-41219______________________UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,v.SHANNON WAYNE AGOFSKY, Defendant – Appellant. ______________________Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Texas_____________________Before: DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
In this direct criminal appeal, Shannon Agofsky challenges histwo capital murder convictions and two death sentences, which ariseout of a single killing. We vacate the convictions because, underthe circumstances of this case, the dual murder convictionsviolated Agofsky?s double jeopardy rights. We remand for theGovernment to elect which conviction and death sentence shouldremain.I. BACKGROUNDThe Government charged Agofsky with two types of capitalmurder.Count 1 of the indictment charged Agofsky withpremeditated murder by a federal prisoner serving a term of lifeimprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 1118, 1111 (2000 & 2003
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
2Supp.) (?Murder by a Federal Frisoner?). Count 2 of the indictmentcharged Agofsky with premeditated, first degree federal murder, inviolation of 18 U.S.C. ? 1111 (2000 & 2003 Supp.) (?FederalMurder?).The two murder charges stemmed from a single death.Theevidence adduced at trial showed that Agofsky murdered LutherPlant, an inmate incarcerated with Agofsky at the federalpenitentiary in Beaumont, Texas. Agofsky killed Plant by strikinghim to the floor and then repeatedly stomping his head and neckinto the concrete.The jury returned a guilty verdict on bothcounts of the indictment.At the sentencing phase, the Government introduced evidence ofAgofsky?s prior murder conviction. He had killed a bank presidentduring the course of an armed robbery by tying him to a chair andthrowing him into a lake. The Government also presented the jurywith evidence that Agofsky had engaged in prior serious misconductwhile in prison and bragged about his violent tendencies. The juryfound several statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors,including that the murder was especially heinous, cruel, ordepraved. After considering a variety of mitigating factors, thejury found that a death sentence was warranted as to each count ofconviction. In this appeal, Agofsky challenges his convictions andsentences on a number of grounds.
——————————————————————————–
Page 3
1Since the Government does not contend that the premeditation element charged in the Count 1 of the indictmentwas superfluous for double jeopardy purposes, we do not considerthe complex issues that might be raised by such an argument here.3II. DISCUSSIONA. DOUBLE JEOPARDYAgofsky first argues that the two-count indictment charged himtwice for the same offense, thereby violating the Double JeopardyClause.The parties agree that we should review de novo.Theyalso agree that Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932),controls our analysis of whether the offenses are the same fordouble jeopardy purposes. ?Under the Blockburger test, eachoffense must contain an element not contained in the other; if not,they are the same offense . . . and double jeopardy bars subsequentpunishment or prosecution.? United States v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852,863 (5th Cir. 1999).1. ANALYSISAs charged by the Government in this case, both Federal Murderand Murder by a Federal Prisoner require proof of (1) an unlawfulkilling (2) with malice aforethought and (3) premeditation.1Theparties agree that Murder by a Federal Prisoner contains a uniqueadditional element, i.e., that the defendant be a federal prisonerserving a life sentence.The only dispute is whether FederalMurder contains an element not contained in Murder by a FederalPrisoner.
——————————————————————————–
Page 4
2The Murder-by-a-Federal-Frisoner statute does notexplicitly state the same jurisdictional element as the FederalMurder statute, though the former does provide that the murdermust occur while the defendant is ?confined in a Federalcorrectional institution.? 18 U.S.C. ? 1118.4The Government argues that Federal Murder?s jurisdictionalelement?that the crime must occur ?within the special maritime andterritorial jurisdiction of the United States??is distinct from anyjurisdictional element found in Murder by a Federal Prisoner.2See18 U.S.C. ? 1111(b). The Government argues further that such adistinct jurisdictional element renders two crimes different fordouble jeopardy purposes. Because we reject the second contention,we do not consider the first.The Government?s argument overlooks that we have held thatjurisdictional elements do not count for double jeopardy purposes.In United States v. Gibson, 820 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1987), thisCourt addressed a double jeopardy challenge to convictions undertwo federal robbery statutes. One statute proscribed ?robbery ofone having lawful custody of mail or other property of the UnitedStates.? Id. at 697.The other prohibited ?robbery within thespecial maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the UnitedStates.? Id. The Gibson Court agreed with the Government that thetwo robbery statutes each contained a distinct element.Id. at698. Gibson nonetheless held that conviction under both statutesviolated the Double Jeopardy Clause:We do not believe . . . that the differences [between the
——————————————————————————–
Page 5
5statutes] here would satisfy the intended purpose of theBlockburger test. In Blockburger itself, the two factsto be proven constituted two evils that Congress soughtto combat . . . . By contrast, in the instant case oneof the two facts to be proven under one section but notthe other is strictly jurisdictional: that the crimeoccurred within United States jurisdiction.As onewriter on the subject has stated, ?when offenses differonly because they have different jurisdictional basestheyshould not be punished cumulatively.? Ajurisdictional fact, while a prerequisite to prosecutionunder a particular statute, is not in itself an evil thatCongress seeks to combat.Id. (internal citation omitted). The jurisdictional element that the Gibson Court refused toconsider for double jeopardy purposes is identical to the elementthe Government relies on in the case at bar. We have some concern with the reasoning of Gibson. See UnitedStates v. Harrison, 64 F.3d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejectingGibson because it ?ignores the fact that Congress may have stronginterests in treating crimes occurring within the jurisdiction ofthe United States differently from those occurring elsewhere?).However, Gibson is still binding on this panel. See United Statesv. Avants, 278 F.3d 510, 518 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002). We must followGibson ?until either this court sitting en banc or the SupremeCourt says otherwise.? See Cardenas v. Dretke, 405 F.3d 244, 253(5th Cir. 2005).Therefore, we hold that Federal Murder, ascharged in this indictment, is the same offense for double jeopardypurposes as Murder by a Federal Prisoner. Accordingly, we vacateAgofsky?s convictions for Federal Murder and Murder by a Federal
——————————————————————————–
Page 6
6Prisoner; on remand the district court should enter a guiltyverdict, as the Government may elect, of either Federal Murder orMurder by a Federal Prisoner. See United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d149, 179 (5th Cir. 1988) (on reh?g).2. REMEDYAgofsky maintains that neither of his death sentences canstand in light of this double jeopardy violation, citing UnitedStates v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 1999). We disagree. Agofsky?s reliance on Causey is misplaced. After finding adouble jeopardy violation, Causey did vacate each of the threedeath sentences at issue there.However, such a course wasrequired in Causey primarily because ?[t]he jury did not makeseparate recommendations concerning the appropriate penalties foreach count of conviction.?Id. at 423.Rather than addressingeach death-eligible count separately, the jury simply made onegeneralized finding that ?the aggravating factors sufficientlyoutweighed any mitigation to justify a sentence of death.? Id. at412.By contrast, in the case at bar, the jury made separaterecommendations concerning the appropriate penalty for each countin the indictment. In light of the jury?s distinct recommendationson each count, Causey is inapposite.The separate sentencing recommendations not only distinguishCausey but also explain why Agofsky?s case falls under the generalrule that reversal of one conviction on double jeopardy grounds
——————————————————————————–
Page 7
7does not require resentencing on any remaining count.No suchresentencing is required on a surviving count so long as it is?clear? that the invalid conviction ?did not lead the districtcourt to impose a harsher sentence? on the surviving count. UnitedStates v. Narviz-Guerra, 148 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1998); UnitedStates v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, it isclear that Agofsky?s conviction for either murder did not lead thejury to recommend a harsher sentence for the other, inasmuch as theverdict forms strictly segregated the jury?s sentencing decisionbetween the two counts.Accordingly, the district court shouldreenter on remand, pursuant to the jury?s previous sentencingverdict, a death sentence as to the murder conviction theGovernment elects to retain.B. THE JURY NOTE AS EVIDENCE OF AN ARBITRARY FACTOR Agofsky?s second claim is that his death sentence was imposedunder the influence of an arbitrary factor. During the punishmentphase deliberations, the jury sent a note to the district court asfollows: ?If a verdict of life is imposed, will the jury be polledas it will for the death penalty[?]? With Agofsky?s agreement, thedistrict court sent a response note. It advised the jury, ?Aftera verdict is returned but before the jury is discharged, the courtmust on a party?s request, or on its own, poll the jurorsindividually.? Agofsky never complained below regarding the jurynote or the court?s response. He now contends, however, that the
——————————————————————————–
Page 8
8note shows that some jurors feared being polled individually due topossible negative public reaction to imposition of a life sentence.This fear, he alleges, was an arbitrary factor that tainted thejury?s decision to recommend death. 1. STANDARD OF REVIEWAlthough the parties agree that Agofsky failed to preserve hisclaim, they dispute the standard of review.In particular, theparties disagree over how to interpret Jones v. United States, 527U.S. 373 (1999).However, we need not decide which standard iscorrect because Agofsky?s arbitrary-factor claim fails even underde novo review.2. ANALYSISThe Federal Death Penalty Act requires a court of appeals tovacate a death sentence if it ?finds? that the sentence was imposed?under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitraryfactor.? 18 U.S.C. ? 3595(c)(2) (2000) (emphasis added). In lightof the statutory language requiring a ?find[ing]? of arbitrarinessbefore granting relief, and in accord with persuasive authority, wehold that the circumstances must show that an arbitrary factor?most likely? influenced the sentence.See United States v.Johnson, 223 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2000). The jury note pointed to byAgofsky does not make such a showing.Other explanations for the jury note seem equally plausible asAgofsky?s theory that the jurors voted for death to avoid negative
——————————————————————————–
Page 9
3In this regard, the Government points out that the note wassent in the morning only two minutes after deliberationsreconvened for a new day and posits that the note may simplyreflect questions that occurred to one or two jurors while theywere adjourned for the night.9public reaction. Perhaps the jurors were considering evading theunanimity requirement and rendering a secretly-divided verdict forlife, which they could accomplish if they would not be polledindividually for a life verdict. Alternatively, perhaps potentialpublic reaction was on the minds of the jurors, but they ultimatelyrefused to let their personal concerns impact their duty to followthe law and base their verdict on the evidence.3Neither of theseexplanations seem materially more or less likely than Agofsky?stheory. In any event, Agofsky?s speculations as to thesignificance of the jury?s note do not suffice for us affirmativelyto find an arbitrary influence. Thus, Agofsky?s claim fails.C. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT CRIME WAS ESPECIALLY HEINOUS, CRUEL OR DEPRAVED Agofsky?s next claim of error in his sentencing is that theevidence is insufficient to support the jury?s finding that hecommitted the murder in an ?especially heinous, cruel, or depravedmanner in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to thevictim.?18 U.S.C. ? 3592(c)(6) (2000) (listing this as astatutory aggravator). ?As with any criminal verdict, [this Court]reviews jury findings of aggravating factors by asking whether,after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
——————————————————————————–
Page 10
10government, any rational trier of fact could have found theexistence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonabledoubt.?United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 481 (5th Cir.2002).As indicated by the statute, a murder may be especiallyheinous, cruel, or depraved if it involves either torture orserious physical abuse. The jury?s verdict form, however, onlymentioned serious physical abuse and omitted any reference totorture. Therefore, the question for us reduces to whether therewas sufficient evidence of heinousness, cruelty, or depravity inthe context of serious physical abuse.For serious physical abuse to be aggravating in a murder case,a defendant must inflict suffering or mutilation above and beyondthat necessary to cause death. See United States v. Hall, 152 F.3d381, 414?15 (5th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by UnitedStates v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 310 (2000) (approving ajury instruction which so provided). Furthermore, a defendant mustintend such gratuitous violence for the murder to involve seriousphysical abuse. See id. (approving an instruction which providedthat ?the defendant must have specifically intended the abuse apartfrom the killing?); United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 324(5th Cir. 1998) (stating that the ?especially heinous, cruel, anddepraved? factor focuses on the defendant?s ?actions and intent?).In this case, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable
——————————————————————————–
Page 11
11doubt that Agofsky intended to inflict (and in fact inflicted) moreabuse than necessary to cause Plant?s death.Agofsky?s attackinvolved continued stomping of Plant?s face and neck. The jurorsheard eyewitness testimony that Agofsky stomped Plant?s head andneck into the concrete ?around 11? times. A medical examiner laterconfirmed that Plant?s injuries were the result of ?repeatedblows.? Furthermore, the corrections officer who witnessed the endof the assault testified that Agofsky continued stomping Plant evenafter Plant lost consciousness. While Agofsky delivered his finalblows, Plant did not put his hands up to defend himself; rather, hewas ?just . . . laying down face up on his back on the ground.?Cf. United States v. Robinson, 367 U.S. 278, 289 n.18 (5th Cir.2004) (?[T]he evidence that Robinson riddled Reyes?s body withbullets after he was on the ground provides probable cause tobelieve that the murder was committed in an especially heinous,cruel, or depraved manner . . . .?). The assault was so violent that it splattered Plant?s bloodand other bodily fluids on the floor and wall of the exercise area.Medical evidence adduced at trial revealed that Plant suffered thefollowing injuries: a crushed neck (i.e., numerous broken neckbones), large abrasions on the back of his head, hemorrhagingaround both eyes, a broken nose, a large bruise across his nose,abrasions and lacerations around his mouth, a broken jaw, one losttooth, three other broken teeth, cheek abrasions, and internal
——————————————————————————–
Page 12
12bleeding into his trachea, lungs, esophagus, and stomach. Based onthe evidence above, the jury rationally could have found thatAgofsky intended to inflict, and did inflict, greater suffering ormutiliation than necessary to cause death. Agofsky makes two main arguments in opposition to thisconclusion.He points to Government testimony that the entireassault lasted only a matter of seconds. He also represents thathe voluntarily stopped the assault while Plant was still alive(though apparently already brain dead). Agofsky argues that thesetwo circumstances belie an intent to cause needless injury ormutilation beyond that required to kill. These arguments cannotsurmount the high standard-of-review hurdle on appeal. First,violence need not be protracted to be gratuitous.See UnitedStates v. Chanthadara,230 F.3d 1237, 1262 (10th Cir. 2000)(holding that a murder victim could be tortured within the meaningof the Federal Death Penalty Act without being subjected toprolonged harm).Thus, a rational jury could have rejectedAgofsky?s time-line inference and found that he inflicted seriousphysical abuse despite the brevity of the attack. Second, the juryrationally could have found that Agofsky ceased the attack onlyafter delivering abuse over and above that necessary to causedeath. For the reasons above, Agofsky?s challenge to the jury?saggravating-factor finding fails.
——————————————————————————–
Page 13
4Agofsky asserts additional claims solely to preserve themfor further review. Inasmuch as Agofsky concedes that theseclaims are foreclosed by precedent binding on this Court, we donot address them.13D.INCONSISTENT VERDICTSFinally, we find no merit in Agofsky?s argument that hisconviction or sentence for Federal Murder is invalid because thejury may have rendered inconsistent verdicts as between the guiltand punishment phases on that count. See Dunn v. United States,284 U.S. 390 (1932); United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 69(1984) (?The rule [permitting inconsistent verdicts] established inDunn v. United States has stood without exception . . . .?)4III. CONCLUSIONAccordingly, we VACATE Agofsky?s convictions to prevent doublejeopardy. See Goff, 847 F.2d at 179. We REMAND to the districtcourt WITH INSTRUCTIONS to impose, at the Government?s election, aguilty verdict and death sentence for either Federal Murder orMurder by a Federal Prisoner. See id; Narviz-Guerra, 148 F.3d at534.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEWS RELEASE Office of the United States Attorney Eastern District of Texas FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Davilyn Brackin DATE: July 16, 2004 Public Affairs Specialist (409) 839-2538 FEDERAL INMATE RECEIVES DEATH PENALTY (Beaumont, Texas) A 33-year-old inmate of the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont has been sentenced to the Death Penalty for the beating death of a fellow inmate. A federal jury convicted SHANNON WAYNE AGOFSKY of Capital Murder last week for fatally beating and stomping another inmate on January 5, 2001. The sentencing phase of the trial began Monday. Agofsky had been serving a life sentence at the Beaumont prison for the 1989 robbery of a Noel, Missouri bank which resulted in the death of the bank’s president.The penalty for capital murder is either life imprisonment or the death penalty. The United States Attorney’s Office received approval from the United States Department of Justice to seek the death penalty in this case. The jury began deliberating late yesterday afternoon and returned with their verdict shortly before 11:00 a.m. U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Orwig is grateful for the jurors’ careful consideration in this case, “The jury was faced with a difficult decision – life or death. The evidence clearly showed Agofsky to be a cold-blooded pathological killer who displayed no remorse for his violent actions. He is certainly a future danger to others. This death penalty verdict is justice long overdue.” –more?
——————————————————————————–
Page 2
Agofsky Death Sentence July 16, 2004 page 2 Orwig also said, “Hopefully, some measure of finality will come to the family of Dan Short, who the defendant brutally killed in the 1989 bank robbery, and to the family of Luther Plant, who the defendant savagely beat to death in 2001.” U. S. District Judge Thad Heartfield issued a gag order in March, 2004, directing prosecutors and defense to refrain from commenting on the matter during the pendency of the case before the Court. Judge Heartfield lifted that restriction with today’s sentencing. Agofsky is the first person to receive the death penalty in the Eastern District of Texas’ federal courts. An order setting a date for execution has not been issued. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Bureau of Prisons investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney John B. Stevens, Jr. prosecuted the case. ###
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2/2008 PAPA research found some interesting information. This came from some reports on the internet search:
The U.S. Penitentiary in Beaumont is home to what prisoners call the ?thunderdome.? This moniker, borrowed from the Mad Max fantasy flicks of the 1980s, refers to the place where ?two go in and only one leaves alive,? as the film synopsis puts it ? a place where two men fight to the death.
At USP Beaumont, witnesses claimed that guards paired up rival prisoners in the 15-by-20 ft. recreation cages and let the prisoners go at it. In January 2001, one of the matches was fatal. Prisoners Shannon Wayne Agofsky and Luther Plant were in the ?rec cage? when, according to a Beaumont prison guard?s testimony in July 2004, Agofsky stomped on Plant?s head, which caused his death nearly two hours later. Forensic experts testified that Plant had drowned in his own blood.
While BOP and FBI officials acknowledge that this was the fourth murder at USP Beaumont since its opening in 1997, they refused to disclose any details to the media relating to the three other homicides, such as the name of the victim, date, time or manner of death, even though these types of facts are routinely released to news media in non-prison homicides.
***NOTE:If PAPA recalls, California was having these “galdiator fights” two in and one out.