Connect with us

News from the South - Texas News Feed

The Innocent and the Executed: James Beathard’s Long-Forgotten Story

Published

on

www.texasobserver.org – Lise Olsen – 2025-08-19 09:00:00


James Beathard, an outspoken pacifist from East Texas, was controversially executed in 1999 for a 1984 triple murder despite claiming innocence. His co-defendant, Gene Hathorn Jr., a violent local drug dealer with clear motive, initially testified against Beathard but later recanted his false testimony. Texas courts denied Beathard’s appeals, citing procedural rules blocking new evidence, while Hathorn’s death sentence was overturned years later due to unpresented mitigating evidence and he was resentenced to life. A documentary, Shadow of a Doubt, aims to uncover Beathard’s story, highlighting concerns over wrongful executions and systemic flaws in Texas’ capital punishment system.

In his East Texas hometown, James Beathard was known as an unconventional thinker—an outspoken peacenik who marched in the high school band and sometimes played chess during lunch breaks. His student body was unapologetically pro-2nd Amendment and, in those pre-mass shooting days, the parking lot in Rusk held plenty of pickups with gun racks full of loaded shotguns and hunting rifles.

So Beathard, whose high school years in the 1970s overlapped with the Vietnam War, shocked his entire lunch table during a raucous debate one day by “coming out as a conscientious objector,” recalled his friend Lucy Murphy. “He really felt he could not … use a gun against anybody. So there was really no sense in him going to the military. And yet his father had been in the military, and my dad was a career military person.”

After graduation, Beathard attended college and then took a job at his hometown’s largest employer: the state mental hospital. In 1984, his biggest problem seemed to be that he’d recently gotten divorced and needed money for a lawyer in order to win more visits with his kids, Murphy said.

So it confounded his fellow residents of Rusk when Beathard was arrested for capital murder—along with a coworker—in connection with a heinous crime that left three people dead in a remote cabin in the Davy Crockett National Forest 50 miles south. Beathard had no prior criminal record.

Fewer seemed surprised about the arrest of Gene Hathorn Jr., the co-defendant, who was a local drug dealer with a history of violence and clear motive. The victims were Hathorn’s father, who’d recently disinherited him, his stepmother, and half-brother. Some locals later testified to threats he’d made against his family and his violent temper: In one instance, he’d used nunchucks to brutalize a man simply for taking a drink of whiskey without asking him. The Trinity County district attorney sought the death penalty for both men.

Beathard’s case went to trial first, and Hathorn testified for the prosecution, claiming his friend planned and carried out the killings. Beathard then denied knowing anything about Hathorn’s murder plot; he testified he’d been tricked into riding to the family home and claimed he’d fled and hidden when Hathorn opened fire. But Beathard was sentenced to death.

A few weeks later, Hathorn recanted, saying he’d concocted false testimony only after being threatened and promised leniency. “I freely admit that I caused the death of all of the decedents by shooting them with guns. I did this without the aid of James L. Beathard. None of the testimony … was in fact true,” he said in an affidavit.

The new version of events made no difference: Beathard, who claimed innocence, was executed in 1999; Hathorn had his death sentence commuted to life.

That’s a portion of this twisted Texas tale that two recent graduates of an English law school—Amelia Nice, originally from Humble, and Gurvin Chopra, who visited Texas for the first time to investigate this case—hope to tell in a new documentary along with Christian Roper, an East Texas filmmaker whose family members knew Beathard. The trio call their film-in-progress, Shadow of a Doubt: The James Beathard Story, and have raised more than $15,000 for the The Beathard Project through a grant and Kickstarter.

Nearly 25 years after his execution, Beathard’s story remains largely untold. In January 2000, the Texas Observer published one of the only articles about his innocence claim. In “A Letter From Hell,” editor Michael King posed the question of why Texas was killing Beathard despite “considerable evidence that Beathard was not guilty.” 

In that era, Governor George W. Bush was running for president on a tough-on-crime platform. Texas executed 152 people during his tenure in the governor’s mansion.

Moments before death, Beathard thanked the Observer and condemned the system that was about to kill him: “I’m dying tonight based on testimony, that all parties, me, the man who gave the testimony, the prosecutor he used knew it was a lie.”

His haunting last words were part of what drew the attention of those students at the undergraduate law school in Bristol, England, decades later. Nice and Chopra learned of Beathard’s story from attorney Clive Stafford Smith, a legendary defense and human rights attorney, who recruited them for the Postmortem Project, a multi-year effort to scrutinize cases where Americans used their last words to proclaim innocence before being executed.

Many cases examined in the project involve Texas, which has both condemned and executed more people than any other state. Since 1976, when U.S. executions resumed after a four-year moratorium prompted by a federal Supreme Court ruling, Texas has killed 595 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center’s execution database. The center separately tallies 18 people from Texas death row who were exonerated and released after flawed forensic evidence, perjury, or other flaws were exposed. 

The same group’s Innocence Database includes Kerry Max Cook, another East Texas man who was wrongfully convicted of a murder in Tyler. In a 2001 back-and-forth with state lawmakers, Cook, who knew Beathard, cited the latter as a clear case of a wrongful execution: “Mr. Beathard, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, was innocent.” Cook was recently declared actually innocent and has sued Smith County officials who allegedly framed him.

There are several other infamous Texas executions involving innocence claims. These include Cameron Todd Willingham, a father from Corsicana whose three small children died in a Christmas-time house fire that seasoned forensic experts later said was sparked by an electrical problem rather than the arson that the state’s expert witnesses had described based on discredited techniques

Carlos DeLuna, of Corpus Christi, was the subject of a Columbia University investigation (and subsequent book) and a Chicago Times series and was executed despite evidence that an eyewitness confused DeLuna with the true killer, another man named Carlos. And Ruben Cantu, a Southside San Antonio youth was executed for a robbery-murder he allegedly committed at age 17—though Cantu’s co-defendent and the lone eyewitness later said that Cantu was never at the scene and detectives targeted Cantu after he’d been in a bar fight involving an off-duty officer.

In an interview with the Observer, Stafford Smith argued that Texas likely has many more cases involving executed innocent people whose stories received far less publicity than Willingham, Cantu, and DeLuna.

Beathard saw all of his appeals denied. Texas courts rejected his innocence claim as too late, since Hathorn’s recantation came 90 days after his trial and Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure “barred the introduction of new evidence as grounds for a new trial more than 30 days after sentencing,” Nice explained in an email. “This quirk of procedural law” combined with a legal doctrine that rejects new evidence of innocence as grounds for relief by itself, she added, “led to an instance where a man was executed on evidence that was essentially nonexistent at the time of his execution.”

Given Texas’ history of largely pro-death penalty court rulings, it’s somewhat astonishing that Hathorn, nearly five years after Beathard’s death, won his own appeal in the same murder case. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his death sentence based on arguments that evidence of abuse he’d suffered as a child from his father, the principal target of his killing spree, had never been presented as a potentially mitigating factor during the punishment phase of his capital murder trial.

In 2004, Hathorn’s attorney negotiated a plea deal, and Hathorn was resentenced to life. In an interview with the Observer, David Sergi, Hathorn’s appellate attorney, told the Observer that he recalls a judge requested the court hearing be held early in the morning to avoid drawing a potentially angry crowd.

One of the few news stories available on the internet about the resentencing does not mention that Beathard had already been executed for the crime, despite an innocence claim. (More than a decade later, Hathorn died of natural causes.)

Joe Price, the Trinity County DA who sought death sentences for Beathard and Hathorn, made different arguments in their two trials. He initially used Hathorn’s testimony to convict Beathard and to argue for a death sentence, saying: “Hathorn might be a cold-blooded killer, but there hasn’t been any evidence in this courtroom that says he is a liar. He is telling the truth.”

Then, in Hathorn’s trial, Price attacked Hathorn’s testimony against Beathard as unbelievable. It could not have convinced a “one-eyed hunting dog,” he said.

Price died in a car accident in 2003. Despite Hathorn’s recantation, William Lee Hon, the retired Polk County prosecutor and Price’s close friend, told the Observer Price never expressed doubts about Beathard’s execution given that under Texas’ so-called law of parties others involved in a crime can sometimes be held responsible for the actions of the mastermind or the triggerman. I don’t think there was any doubt in Joe’s mind, at least based on my discussions with him,” Hon said.

Still, some people in Rusk ask themselves how it was that the gunman ended up getting off death row and the innocent onlooker was executed. Roper, the documentary filmmaker on the Beathard project, grew up in Rusk, and he said plenty of locals consider Beathard’s execution to have been unjust. Among them is his Aunt Lucy.

Lucy Murphy was one of Beathard’s close friends and lunchroom pals growing up. Her father employed him at the state mental hospital. She was sitting with him the day he declared as a teen that he could never use a gun against another man. She thinks Texas executed an innocent man, someone guilty mainly of trusting the wrong person. “At the beginning, when he was convicted of this, I thought he didn’t do it. There’s no way he could have done this. He did not shoot anybody,” Murphy told the Observer.

Murphy remembers Beathard telling her: “This guy took me off in the middle of nowhere to his parents’ house. And he killed his family. Oh, I waited outside, not knowing what the fuck was going on. I figured it out pretty quick, he said some things in the past, but it was too late.” Afterward, he told her, Hathorn repeatedly threatened to kill his family if he didn’t cover for Hathorn.

“What would you do?” Murphy asked. “You just, you protect the people you love. And I think that’s why he made some bad choices and got some bad advice. But he didn’t shoot anybody.”

The post The Innocent and the Executed: James Beathard’s Long-Forgotten Story appeared first on www.texasobserver.org



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content critiques the Texas criminal justice system, particularly its use of the death penalty, highlighting cases of potential wrongful executions and systemic flaws. The focus on innocence claims, procedural barriers to justice, and the human cost of capital punishment aligns with concerns often emphasized by center-left perspectives advocating for criminal justice reform and greater protections for defendants. While it does not overtly politicize the issue, the critical tone toward state authorities and the death penalty suggests a center-left leaning viewpoint.

News from the South - Texas News Feed

Trump targets mail-in ballots, 'seriously controversial' voting machines

Published

on

www.kxan.com – Sarah Fortinsky – 2025-08-19 13:36:00

SUMMARY: President Trump announced plans to sign an executive order ending mail-in ballots and “controversial” voting machines before the 2026 midterms. On Truth Social, he criticized mail voting for alleged widespread fraud, calling voting machines expensive and inaccurate compared to paper ballots. Trump claimed Democrats oppose this effort because they rely on cheating via mail ballots, which he dubbed a “hoax.” His claims of mail-in voter fraud remain unproven, despite legal setbacks blocking parts of his previous election-related orders. Trump emphasized federal authority over states in elections, pledging to fight for election integrity and honest results.

Read the full article

The post Trump targets mail-in ballots, 'seriously controversial' voting machines appeared first on www.kxan.com

Continue Reading

News from the South - Texas News Feed

AUS negotiating with airlines for space in new terminal, Southwest wants to be 'anchor tenant'

Published

on

www.kxan.com – Christopher Adams – 2025-08-19 07:15:00

SUMMARY: Negotiations between Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) and airlines are ongoing to update the use and lease agreement, effective Jan. 1, 2025, guiding operations through at least 2035. This agreement is crucial as AUS plans a new terminal with 20+ gates, doubling capacity by 2030. Southwest aims to be the “anchor tenant” of the new concourse, proposing to expand to 18 gates, supporting significant passenger growth and economic impact. Delta also supports the agreement, seeing continued growth potential. Finalizing this partnership is vital for funding the Airport Expansion and Development Program and ensuring smooth future operations at AUS.

Read the full article

The post AUS negotiating with airlines for space in new terminal, Southwest wants to be 'anchor tenant' appeared first on www.kxan.com

Continue Reading

News from the South - Texas News Feed

Texas colleges lack state guidance on in-state tuition order

Published

on

feeds.texastribune.org – By Jessica Priest – 2025-08-19 05:00:00


Katerin, a 24-year-old DACA recipient and University of Houston graduate student, faced a tuition bill nearly doubling to $7,900 after a federal court ruling ended in-state tuition benefits for many undocumented students under the 2001 Texas Dream Act. Although DACA recipients like her should still qualify, inconsistent university responses and lack of state guidance have caused confusion and financial strain. Advocates criticize the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for inadequate implementation support. Some universities demand original documents or misclassify students, forcing many to pay higher out-of-state rates temporarily. Katerin successfully challenged her status, restoring her in-state tuition, but worries about others facing debt or dropout risks.

Confusion reigns as Texas colleges scramble to comply with ban on in-state tuition for undocumented students” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


Katerin felt her whole body flush when she opened her fall tuition bill from the University of Houston: It had nearly doubled to $7,900.

The 24-year-old has lived in Texas since her parents brought her to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 2. Thanks to the 2001 Texas Dream Act, she’s always qualified for in-state tuition as she worked toward a master’s degree in social work.

A federal court ruling swiftly gutted the law in June, ending the benefit for thousands of undocumented students. But Katerin is in the country legally, as a recipient of the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which protects certain immigrants from deportation and allows them to work legally.

Students like Katerin, who asked that her last name not be used over concerns about a relative’s undocumented status, should still qualify for in-state tuition, attorneys for Texas said in a court filing. But advocates say some Texas universities are misinterpreting the court ruling, leaving students like Katerin with confusing messages and sky-high tuition bills just as classes are about to begin.

Advocates call it an urgent and widespread problem fueled by the lack of state guidance on how to implement the ruling. They worry hundreds of students are being sent incorrect tuition bills and will not have the time, guidance, resources or support to challenge them.

“As someone who was undocumented, I know there are some students who are going to be like, ‘I’m not even going to push this,’” said Julieta Garibay, co-founder of United We Dream, a national immigrant advocacy group. “I’m watching TV and there are people who are literally getting picked up in the middle of the street and getting deported to some other country, not their country of origin. Why am I going to make noise when something could happen to me?”

Two weeks after the court’s ruling, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board instructed colleges to identify and reclassify students who are not lawfully present in the country as nonresidents for the fall semester. It offered no guidance on how institutions should determine lawful presence or what documentation to accept.

A spokesperson for the board did not answer questions from The Texas Tribune.

Advocates say without clear guidance from the state, students’ ability to continue paying in-state tuition rates can hinge on where they attend college, not whether they qualify.

“What we’ve seen is a chaotic, haphazard and inconsistent implementation across the state with grave emotional consequences for students … but more importantly, with dire consequences,” said Barbara Hines, who helped write the Texas Dream Act 24 years ago and founded the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law.

Katerin M.S., 24, a graduate student in social work at the University of Houston, works full time as a case worker while managing her schoolwork in her office. She holds a copy of the email she received from the university requiring nonresident tuition on Sunday, Aug. 17, 2025, in Houston.
Katerin, who is protected from deportation and legally allowed to work in the U.S., shows a copy of the email she received from the University of Houston notifying her of a tuition change based on her classification as non-resident. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune

Hines said the coordinating board should be doing more to help schools implement the ruling. At a minimum, she said, the agency should issue clear guidance that aligns with the Texas Department of Public Safety’s categories of lawful presence, lists acceptable proof documents, and sets reasonable timelines for schools to process students’ paperwork. She also urged the agency to ensure that universities have trained staff to handle residency reclassifications and communicate accurate information to students.

How schools are responding to the change

To qualify for in-state tuition under the 2001 Texas Dream Act, students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent U.S. residency as soon as they were eligible. In 2024, 18,593 Texas college students signed that affidavit.

The Tribune contacted the nine public colleges with the largest number of students who signed that affidavit to learn how they are implementing the court’s ruling. Those schools were Dallas College, Houston Community College, Lone Star College, the University of Houston, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Dallas, the University of Texas at Arlington, and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.

Texas A&M was the only school that said it will accept the same documents the Texas Department of Public Safety uses to establish lawful presence for a Texas Real ID, which includes an employment authorization document for DACA recipients. The university said it will accept documents until Sept. 10, the fall census date when universities finalize residency status and enrollment counts.

A coalition of immigrant rights and legal advocacy groups singled out UT-Austin for creating confusion about the ruling in communications with students. UT-Austin did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Members of the coalition shared with the Tribune messages UT-Austin sent students saying they had until July 24 to submit documents. One message incorrectly stated, “due to a new Texas law effective June 2025, we now require proof of lawful immigration status.” This was wrong in two ways: there was no new state law, only a federal court ruling, and the message substituted “lawful immigration status” for “lawful presence,” the term used in the court’s ruling. That narrower category excludes people with DACA, temporary protected status and pending permanent U.S. residency applications.

Garibay said UT-Austin is also directing students to a residency questionnaire that omits some current lawful presence categories. She said students in those groups are bumped out of the questionnaire and told to contact the enrollment office, where many get unclear or no answers.

Garibay and other advocates told the Tribune they have accompanied some students to the enrollment office, where they were advised to pay the higher out-of-state tuition rate and seek reimbursement later, despite the process taking up to four weeks.

The advocates called the advice unreasonable given the other time-sensitive financial decisions students must make at the beginning of the school year, such as whether to sign a lease for an apartment. Garibay also noted that even if UT-Austin students pay tuition in installments, the university requires students to pay the full amount by October.

UT-Austin is not the only university where the coalition says students have encountered problems. The coalition said many colleges lack dedicated, trained staff to assist students with questions about the in-state tuition changes. Some have demanded students provide original documents or mistakenly told some noncitizens they could not enroll.

“For many students, that means they have no passport or permanent resident card or other documents, and they’re without them for weeks,” said Barbara Hines, former clinical professor of law and founder of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law.

The coalition declined to name those schools, citing their responsiveness to the group’s feedback and corrective actions.

Katerin M.S., 24, a graduate student in social work at the University of Houston, works full time as a case worker while managing her schoolwork in her office. She edits a copy of her homework for a class on Critical Practice with Latinx Communities on her desk on Sunday, Aug. 17, 2025, in Houston.
Katerin edits her schoolwork in her Houston office on Aug. 17, 2025. She works full-time as a case worker while also balancing a masters program in social work. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune

Of the schools the Tribune contacted, Houston Community College and UT-Arlington did not respond. Dallas College said it could not respond to questions by the Tribune’s deadline. Lone Star College declined to answer questions. UT-Rio Grande Valley declined to answer questions, but reiterated a June statement that it aims to minimize disruption to students while following the law. UT-Dallas referred the Tribune to a website that on Monday noted staff were reviewing residency documents submitted between July 16-31.

Hines, who helped write the Texas Dream Act 24 years ago, said the agency should have done more to help schools implement the ruling. She said it should have allowed them to grandfather in students who were relying on the Texas Dream Act to graduate from college. Alternatively, she said, the coordinating board could have delayed implementation until 2026 to give schools time to create orderly procedures and students time to understand the requirements.

Texas House Democrats made a similar request in a letter earlier this summer, urging the coordinating board to create a temporary tuition category so affected students could continue paying the in-state tuition rate this fall. Commissioner Wynn Rosser rejected the idea, saying the agency did not have the authority to create new categories or to contradict the federal court order.

Kristin Etter, director of policy and legal services at the Texas Immigration Law Council, thinks students could challenge the increases under a state law that bars universities from raising tuition after they have registered for classes. She said it is unclear whether it applies to residency reclassifications, though some schools appear to be interpreting that it does not.

Fighting to prove she still qualified

Katerin is one of six children and entered the DACA program when she was 16.

She has never received financial aid or taken out loans, she said, instead paying for her education by working full-time at a nonprofit child placing agency that licenses foster homes and conducts monthly check-ins on the well-being of foster children. She earned an associate degree from Houston Community College, a bachelor’s degree from the University of Houston-Downtown, and was admitted to UH’s Graduate College of Social Work last year. Her long-term goal is to become a social work professor.

On July 22, UH emailed Katerin saying it had changed her status to nonresident because of the ruling. UH gave her until Aug. 8 to prove lawful presence. The message listed documents she could submit as evidence, including a work authorization card issued to DACA recipients. But didn’t explicitly say DACA recipients still qualified for in-state tuition.

The university’s online student portal created confusion, too. Her emails to the registrar’s office went unanswered. When she called, she was told to wait more than a week to see if she qualified for in-state tuition.

DACA students don’t qualify for federal aid, such as the Pell Grants that go to families making less than $50,000 a year.

Frustrated by the lack of progress, Katerin reached out to one of her professors, who connected her with an immigrant rights group. With their guidance, she resubmitted documents showing she is a DACA recipient, along with a new Texas Dream Act affidavit the coordinating board had revised. On July 31, UH restored her in-state tuition, reducing her bill to $4,349.32.

“I feel like if it wasn’t for me moving, and if it wasn’t for me speaking up, the university, they wouldn’t care,” Katerin said.

In a statement, the University of Houston said it is complying with the court ruling, but did not answer questions about how the changes affect DACA recipients or how it is preventing misclassifications.

Katerin M.S., 24, works as a full-time case worker at Tejano Center Placing Agency, where she serves children who have experienced loss, neglect and abuse, and decorates her office with drawings the children make for her. She manages her schoolwork from the office while balancing her job on Sunday, Aug. 17, 2025, in Houston.
Katerin, who hopes to one day become a social work professor, shows drawings from the children that she works with. After fighting the tuition hike, UH restored her in-state tuition, reducing her bill to $4,349.32. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune

She expects to graduate in the spring and has saved enough money in case DACA recipients lose in-state tuition eligibility before then, but she believes many students in her situation will be forced to take on debt or drop out if it does. The experience, she said, eroded the pride she once felt in being a UH cougar.

“Now, I’m like, ‘let’s get through it. Let’s graduate already,’” she said.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Houston Community College, JLone Star College, Texas A&M University, University of Houston, University of Texas – Arlington, University of Texas – Dallas, University of Texas – Rio Grande Valley and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year’s lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of “CNN NewsNight”; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today!

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/19/texas-colleges-undocumented-immigrants-tuition-ruling/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The post Texas colleges lack state guidance on in-state tuition order appeared first on feeds.texastribune.org



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article focuses on the challenges faced by undocumented and DACA students in Texas regarding in-state tuition eligibility following a federal court ruling. It highlights the impacts on students, the shortcomings of state guidance, and the responses from universities, emphasizing the struggles of immigrant communities and advocates’ concerns. The tone is sympathetic to immigrant rights and critical of bureaucratic inefficiencies, aligning with center-left perspectives that support immigrant protections and educational access while maintaining a factual and balanced presentation without overt partisanship.

Continue Reading

Trending