Arizona Clemency Board denies death row prisoner Clarence Dixon's request for commutation, reprieve

The Arizona Board of Executive Clemency voted Thursday to deny death row prisoner Clarence Dixon's request for commutation or a reprieve.

His execution for the 1978 murder of Arizona State University student Deana Bowdoin is scheduled for May 11.

After several hours of presentations from Dixon's legal team, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, a family member of Dixon's victim, and advocacy groups, all four board members said they did not believe Dixon showed any remorse for his crimes and did not deserve mercy.

“What was really missing for me was any showing of remorse or acceptance of responsibility," Mena Mendez, board chair, said. 

She said she did weigh the possibility of a reprieve so a hearing regarding Dixon's mental competency could move forward before his execution. But Mendez and the other board members said despite arguments presented by his attorneys to the contrary, they believed Dixon was competent when he committed the crimes he was convicted of and that he understood the reasoning for his death sentence.

Board member Louis Quinonez said he had heard "nothing in the way of his remorse." 

"After taking in the totality, I am convinced Mr. Dixon knew right from wrong. I do not recommend commutation," said Quinonez. 

Michael Johnson, another board member, also voted against commutation.

“I don't think there was any injustice when he had his hearings," said Johnson. "And I think it was his constitutional right to represent himself.”

The board members were not convinced by attorneys from the federal public defender's office, who emphasized mitigating factors in Dixon's case, and requested a commutation to a life sentence or, at the very least, a reprieve that would postpone the execution while other legal action plays out. Dixon's attorney said he was mentally and physically frail and confused about why he was being executed.

But board member Sal Freni said after reviewing the case he found Dixon to be "very articulate" and that Dixon seemed to understand the relevant laws regarding his case.

Dixon's attorneys: Asking for mercy

"We are not here today to dispute Clarence Dixon's guilt," assistant federal public defender Amanda Bass told the Clemency Board members Thursday morning. "Nor are we here to somehow justify, excuse or minimize the Bowdoin family's suffering as a result of her tragic death. Rather, we are here today to ask this board for mercy."

"Mercy, because of Clarence's need for intervention and treatment as a damaged and profoundly mentally ill young man," Bass continued. "Mercy, because the system that was tasked with deciding whether he deserved to live or die is fundamentally broken. And mercy because, at this point, 44 years after Miss Bowdoin's tragic murder, Clarence is a frail, blind elderly and mentally incompetent man whose health is rapidly failing him."

Bass and her colleagues spent the next few hours presenting evidence from Dixon's life and interviewing witnesses from his long history in the criminal justice system.

They painted a portrait of a man who developed serious mental illness at a young age, the severity of which was never properly recognized by the courts.

Bass told the board how the jury in Dixon's trial was not able to hear evidence about his mental illness, nor were they told Dixon had been found legally insane and diagnosed with schizophrenia. 

"The jury didn't hear about the chronic abuse and neglect in his life and the impact it had on him," Bass said. 

Bass told the Board these executive clemency proceedings were "a fundamental part of the American system of justice, to correct the system's failures, and to right wrongs by showing mercy."

Failures at every level

Assistant federal public defender Cary Sandman said they would present evidence to the board that not only Dixon's trial jury did not hear, but "no subsequent court ever considered it in determining the justice of Mr. Dixon's sentence."

Sandman said what the jury should have heard was a plea of "guilty but insane" because Dixon had previously been declared legally insane by a Maricopa County court.

As the result of a previous assault case, then-Superior Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor found that Dixon was so mentally ill and dangerous to the community that he should be civilly committed to the state hospital. But Sandman said no one from the County Attorney's Office or the courts acted on O'Connor's order to begin the civil commitment proceedings, and Dixon was released. He murdered Deana Bowdoin two days later.

At the trial for the murder of Deana Bowdoin, Dixon was allowed to fire his attorneys and represent himself, despite questions regarding his mental competency.

Ty Mayberry, a capital mitigation specialist, said it was hard to communicate with Dixon about his case.

"He couldn't retain information," Mayberry said. "There was no way to have a rational conversation with him." He told the board he did not believe Dixon was competent to represent himself based on his interactions with him.

Mayberry sat through every day of Dixon's trial, which he called "a nightmare."

"It was borderline traumatic," Mayberry said. "It was like watching someone you knew was struggling and it was almost inhumane that we could not help him in any way."

Mayberry said he was not allowed to give Dixon any legal advice during the trial.

"The prosecutor was objecting to every question he asked," he said. "I could tell he was frustrated and had given up. It was difficult to watch."

Mayberry told the board his mitigation work for Dixon was hampered by a large caseload.

"I had nine cases at the time, which is completely insane," he said. "You should have about 3 cases at most. So I was just putting out fires."

Emily Skinner with the Arizona Capital Representation Project said at the time Dixon's case went to trial, Arizona was in a "capital case crisis, with more than 120 pending cases in Maricopa County alone in January of 2008."

She said these conditions, brought about by the practices of disbarred County Attorney Andrew Thomas, led to an "extreme miscarriage of justice." Thomas was disbarred in 2012.

After Dixon's trial, Mayberry said a juror asked him if "there was any type of mental health stuff going on with Dixon." Mayberry said, "I could have gone on for hours, but I just told them 'you didn't hear everything you needed to hear.'"

After the trial verdict and death sentence, Dixon's case went before the Arizona Supreme Court on a direct appeal. But a direct appeal review is limited to the record from the court, which Sandman argued was insufficient.

The judge in the state post-conviction phase was the same judge in the jury trial, where Sandman said Dixon was allowed to waive his right to counsel and represent himself.

Questions over competency

Board Chair Mendez asked about Dixon's competency at various stages of his life. Sandman said there is substantial evidence that he was severely mentally ill at the time of the crime and throughout his legal process. 

"He was not competent to stand trial and therefore not competent to represent himself," Sandman said.

Board member Johnson asked if Dixon had the right to represent himself regardless of his mental state. His attorneys responded that he did, but the courts should given Dixon a competency evaluation with psychiatrists before the decision was made to allow him to waive his right to counsel. 

Sandman said Dixon's attorney at the time of trial, Garrett Simpson, should have requested a competency evaluation, but he did not. "That's where the trap door opened," Sandman said. "And it remains closed to this day."

"There has never been a court hearing on whether Mr. Dixon has been mentally competent at any point throughout this whole process," said Bass.

Simpson addressed the board about his failure to request a competency evaluation, calling it "my mistake."

"It's like the hinge the gate swings on," Simpson said, "we wouldn't be here if I hadn't made that misjudgment."

Simpson said it never occurred to him at the time, because Dixon appeared articulate but was actually delusional.

"It was deceptively easy to talk to him, because he appeared to be functional," Simpson said.

Psychologist Dr. John Toma evaluated Dixon in 2012. He told the board he spent 14 hours interviewing and testing Dixon and also completed a review of his medical records. Toma diagnosed Dixon with "schizophrenia paranoid type, a psychotic disorder that means he suffers from disturbance in thought and perception."

Toma said in 1981, the Department of Corrections also diagnosed Dixon as schizophrenic. Toma said DOC found him to be "severely confused and disturbed" at the time. Toma said he believes that Dixon was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of Deana Bowdoin’s murder, but this evidence was never introduced in court.

Life and death choices

Responding to the presentation from Dixon's attorneys, Maricopa County prosecutor Vince Imbordino told the board Dixon chose how to conduct his trial and said it was a choice not to present any mitigation.

John Schneider from the County Attorney's Office called Dixon "a predator" who had displayed no remorse for his crimes. He described how Dixon admitted to breaking into people's homes and said he felt excitement at the thought of harming people.

Schneider pushed back on the failures in the process presented by Dixon's attorneys, saying "this is not the forum to attack the American justice system or to attack Arizona law."

Schneider told the board he believed Dixon is “clearly aware of what’s happening” because he had mentioned that he is sad about his pending execution date and has expressed opinions on recent political topics.

Leslie Bowdoin James, sister of Deana Bowdoin, addressed the board, saying she was there "because of the Jan. 7th, 1978, choices and actions taken by this inmate, to punch rape, stab and strangle to death my only sister.”

James recounted how she and her family have been attending court proceedings for years.

"For me and my parents and for all the women brutalized by this inmate — for society — and most of all for my sister Deana — there is not one legal, social or moral imperative for recommending reprieve of commutation," James said.

The Board of Clemency agreed, unanimously denying both requests from Dixon. 

Reacting to the decision, James said, "Today there was a lot of discussion about choices, and I think the board made the correct choice."

Have a news tip on Arizona prisons? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or at 812-243-5582. Follow him on Twitter @JimmyJenkins.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.