Death row inmate asks to be spared because juror said, ‘That’s what the ni**er deserved’

Posted by | April 12, 2016 13:42 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly


Kenneth Fults is asking the Supreme Court to halt his execution.

…Fults, a black man, is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for murdering Cathy Bounds, a white woman, in 1997.

According to court documents, Fults forced his way inside Bounds’ home as part of a burglary. She begged for her life and offered up her jewelry, but Fults shot her five times in the back of the head anyway. Fults pled guilty and was sentenced to death.

One of the jurors who sentenced him to death, Thomas Buffington, wrote in a sworn affidavit after the trial that “I don’t know if [Fults] ever killed anybody, but that nigger got just what should have happened. Once he pled guilty, I knew I would vote for the death penalty because that’s what that nigger deserved.”

Before Buffington was allowed to serve as a juror, he was asked if he had any racial prejudices. He said no. He signed the affidavit in 2005 and has since passed away.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

6 responses to Death row inmate asks to be spared because juror said, ‘That’s what the ni**er deserved’

  1. nola878 April 12th, 2016 at 13:44

    Oh boy. Looks like grounds for a stay of execution at minimum.

    • whatthe46 April 12th, 2016 at 13:51

      he most definitely deserves to rot in fk’n hell. i don’t care what race this woman was, or this pos for that matter. what he did was so fk’n WRONG!

    • arc99 April 12th, 2016 at 13:51

      I disagree. I am a black man who does not believe in capital punishment. But my personal views and ethnicity aside, unless the juror’s bigotry casts doubts on the facts in the case, I don;t see how the death penalty could be delayed. Nothing in this story indicates the defendant or his attorney are disputing the specifics of the crime for which he was convicted.

      So if the facts are not in dispute, and the sentence is in accordance with state law, I do not see any grounds for a court to act. If an ignorant bigot makes the correct decision based on the law, it is still the correct decision based on the law.

      • whatthe46 April 12th, 2016 at 13:54

        it could be delayed. this juror specifically said when he pled guilty, he knew he would give him the death penalty and it was based on his race. there have been white men that have done much worse than this and received life and some with the possibility of parole. race definitely played a factor in his sentencing of this pos. that’s why the question was asked in voir dire.

        • arc99 April 12th, 2016 at 14:02

          valid points.

          My high school French recollections tell me that voir dire means “to see to say”. One of these days I will get around to figuring out why lawyers use foreign languages like Latin and French. Legalese is already confusing enough as it is.

    • Carla Akins April 12th, 2016 at 13:57

      I am completely anti-death penalty, however this issue has already been addressed. He appealed on the premise the a juror was biased and may have influenced the remainder of the jury pool but the conviction was upheld.

      In order to stay an execution, there has to be substantial evidence of a trial error, an appeal-able trial error. If they determined he was innocent, but a unable to point to a trial error the conviction would stand and he would be executed. Barbaric, huh?

Leave a Reply