Execution set for April 25
In 1983, Pedro Solis Sosa (then 31) and his 17-year old nephew Leroy Sosa kidnapped Deputy Ollie F. Childress Jr., murdered him, and robbed a bank.
Police arrested Pedro Sosa on February 3, 1984, at which time he signed a written confession admitting his guilt. Leroy Sosa also signed a written confession soon after his arrest on December 19, 1983, which was consistent with the key elements of Pedro’s confession. Additionally, Leroy Sosa testified at Pedro’s trial that his uncle shot Deputy Childress.
Pedro Sosa has been on Texas Death Row for way too long, mostly because he has become a master of manipulating and abusing the appeals process. But on April 25, it looks like Pedro will finally pay the price for his brutal murder of Deputy Childress.
***
A summary of Pedro’s crime:
Sosa and his nephew abducted Officer Childress and drove his patrol car, with the officer in the trunk, to the LaVernia State Bank, which they robbed of $51K. The robbers then drove to a secluded area and shot Childress once in the neck with his own .44-caliber revolver while handcuffed in the trunk.
Sosa and his nephew then fled in their own vehicle, but returned a short time later to wipe the partrol car clean of their prints. Finding Officer Childress still alive, Pedro shot the officer a second time in the neck.
***
Ironically, one of Pedro’s appeals states:
his prolonged stay on death row violates his rights under both the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments and the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Unfortunately for Sosa, “No American court had held that the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment or the terms of the ICCPR prohibits the execution of a convicted capital murderer who has successfully avoided multiple execution dates by filing actions in state and federal court collaterally attacking his conviction and sentence.
Further, “The only impediments to Texas carrying out Petitioner’s sentence that have arisen since the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence in 1989 have been of Petitioner’s own creation.





Got something you want to say?
Why, yes. First, I would cut off his nuts.
This cruel and unusual argument California doesn’t even buy into. It’s like the proverbial story of the guy who murders his parents and then demands mercy because he is an orphan.
Left by 2 on April 11th, 2006 at 10:11 am