MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The state of Alabama has set an execution date for Charles “Sonny” Burton, a 75-year-old man condemned for a murder committed during a 1991 robbery, although he did not fire the fatal shot. Governor Kay Ivey announced the execution is scheduled for March 12 and will be carried out using nitrogen gas.
Burton was convicted as an accomplice in the killing of Doug Battle, who was shot during a robbery at a Talladega auto parts store. While he was found guilty of capital murder, evidence shows that Burton was not present at the store when the crime occurred. His co-defendant, Derrick DeBruce, who did pull the trigger, received a death sentence that was later commuted to life imprisonment, where he ultimately passed away.
Calls for clemency have surged from various community members, including Battle’s family and some jurors from Burton’s trial. They contend that executing Burton, who did not directly take a life, would be inequitable, especially given that DeBruce received a lesser sentence for the same crime. Matt Schulz, Burton’s attorney, expressed deep disappointment over the execution date, hoping that Ivey might reconsider.
In a recent communication to the prison commissioner, Ivey confirmed her current stance against clemency but noted the possibility of granting a reprieve at any point prior to the execution. The Alabama Attorney General’s office has opposed calls for Burton’s clemency, stating that the conviction and sentence have withstood judicial review.
Burton was convicted in April 1992, with a unanimous jury recommending the death penalty. A representative from the Attorney General’s office previously emphasized that the conviction has been upheld at every level. However, Schulz referenced a 2015 filing where the state suggested that it could be “arguably unjust” to impose a death sentence on Burton while the shooter, DeBruce, was spared the same fate.
Among the living jurors from Burton’s trial, there appears to be a shift in perspective. Six jurors have expressed support for a commutation, with three actively advocating for it, indicating they would have viewed the situation differently had they known the shooter’s sentence would be reduced. Juror Priscilla Townsend articulated her belief that their decision to recommend the death penalty was flawed.
Reflecting on her experience during the trial, Townsend conveyed that she initially supported the death penalty for what she deemed the “worst of the worst.” Yet, she now questions whether Burton fits that description. In a recent op-ed, she detailed her struggles with the moral implications of the verdict, stating that she has come to understand the gravity of sending an innocent person to death row.
The legal precedent allows for harsh penalties in cases of felony murder, where accomplices can receive the same sentences as the primary offenders, even if they did not directly contribute to the killing. This practice is legal in 27 states, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which raises fundamental questions about the fairness of capital punishment in instances where culpability differs.
As the March execution date approaches, the debate over Burton’s case underscores broader concerns about justice and equity within the legal system, igniting fervent discussions about the legitimacy and morality of applying the death penalty in such situations.