Attorneys for John Balentine, a Black man sentenced to die for killing Mark Caylor and two other white teenagers in Amarillo in 1998, have uncovered powerful, previously unheard evidence of racism at his trial. That trial judge placed a hold on Balentine’s execution, but on Wednesday, Feb. 8 – the day he was set to die – the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated that stay; at press time on Wednesday, Balentine had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Centered around an interracial relationship in deeply conservative Amarillo, Balentine’s trial was suffused with racist overtones even before the new evidence was uncovered. Attorney Peter Walker writes that Balentine had angered Caylor by dating his sister, Misty. “Things hit a boiling point when Mark Caylor, recently released from a juvenile boot camp for shooting up a house, stole another gun and made it known to numerous people that he was coming for Mr. Balentine,” Walker’s appeal reads. “Investigators recovered from the crime scene a note from Mark Caylor stating he was going to ‘187’ (meaning ‘kill’) the ‘neger,’ followed by reference to Mark’s own gang affiliation.” Another Caylor brother testified that he threatened Balentine by placing a note on his front door referring to the Ku Klux Klan.
This information has been part of the record all along. What’s new is the role played by the foreman of Balentine’s jury – Dory England. Testimony collected by investigators in the last two years paints England as a man who deeply disliked Black people, habitually used the N-word in referring to them, and believed interracial relationships were unacceptable.
At least four jurors began the sentencing deliberations in favor of life, according to Balentine’s appeal. England vehemently opposed the idea: “He was concerned that if others voted for life, Mr. Balentine could get paroled early. If that were to happen, Mr. England believed that he would personally have to hunt Mr. Balentine down and kill him. He would shoot Mr. Balentine if he ever saw him on the street.” Walker writes that England never considered a life sentence, telling the other jurors that sentencing Balentine to death was “biblically justified.” He was so strongly against a life sentence that when a jury member wrote a note stating this was her preference, England angrily ripped it up.
Investigators for Balentine have interviewed some of these jurors in the last two years. Several spoke of the trial’s atmosphere of racial tension. One remembered being shocked that authorities did not remove Balentine’s shackles, as they are required to do: “I watched the sheriffs bring in this Black man covered in chains and shackles. It was a strange sight. It took me a while to piece together that this was who the case was about. They sat him down right where all of us were seated … I have been on two other juries and I know someone isn’t supposed to be chained up like that.”
Balentine’s attorneys argue that the trial was racist in other ways – for example, prosecutors made certain there were no Black people on the jury. They say Balentine’s court-appointed attorneys demonstrated racism by sharing a handwritten note suggesting their client deserved to die in the same fashion that white supremacists have historically killed Black men; the note read, “Can you spell justifiable lynching?”
Shawn Nolan, another of Balentine’s attorneys, points to a a pair of 2017 opinions addressing racist trials – Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado and Buck v. Davis – that suggest Balentine’s death sentence should be held to be unconstitutional. “The court is a bit different today than it was a couple of years ago, but I still think they should be very interested in these kinds of issues,” Nolan told us.
This article appears in February 10 • 2023.
