Photo by Bill Oxford
Updated 10/16/20: Bryant was granted parole!
Have you heard of Fair Wayne Bryant?
I first heard of him a few days ago and, ever since, he hasn’t left my head.
Bryant has spent the last 23 years in Louisiana State Penitentiary serving a life sentence. And what were the charges that earned him a lifelong prison sentence? He allegedly stole some hedge clippers from someone’s carport.
Yes, that’s right. Hedge clippers.
I learned of his story after hearing Bryan Stevenson refer to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his sentence. And when I heard it, I was at a loss for words. Did I hear that correctly? I’m sure I missed something, right? There just has to be more to the story… right?
I was determined to find out, and, as much as someone not well-versed in law vernacular and proceedings could do, I started looking into it. And it turns out, sadly, it’s true. And as tends to be the case, there’s more to the story. Although, for the additional complexities, I began to also see it as even more tragic and heartbreaking.
One of Bryant’s misfortunes is that his charge in 1997 involving the hedge clippers came just a few years after the arrival of the infamous “3 Strikes” bill, initially endorsed by Bill Clinton. The bill proposed mandatory minimums, including life sentences for repeat offenders. And that came on the heels of decades of “law and order” endorsed by Nixon in the 1970s and Reagan in the 1980s. Not only were mass amounts of people being incarcerated at alarming rates, this new “3 Strikes” bill meant many would be sent to prison for incredibly long amounts of time. The bill also limited judges, arguably the most neutral and impartial party in the criminal justice system, from using their judgment to determine appropriate sentences. Clinton has expressed regret over the bill and now says it hurt way more than it helped. But that wasn’t the sentiment shared by states in the mid-1990s, as they began to adopt their own “Habitual Offender” laws.
At this point, if you’re anything like me, you might be asking yourself some questions.
What exactly constitutes “three strikes”? Are misdemeanors considered a “strike” or are only felonies a “strike”? Am I expected to know whether a crime is a misdemeanor or felony?
If you can answer those questions, I tip my hat to you. Because I couldn’t. I was unaware. So that led to more research! Because I wanted to know. But as I began to learn, I also began to discover that there was so much more that I didn’t know. Take District Attorneys for example.
Do you know how many District Attorneys there are in your state? Do you know if they’re elected or appointed? Do you know who the District Attorney is for your local community?
Once again, I had no idea. I was unaware. After more research, I learned that Georgia, where I live, has 49 judicial circuits, each with an elected District Attorney, and my current District Attorney is Joyette Holmes. However, I discovered that, even though Georgia D.A.s are elected, Governor Kemp actually appointed Holmes to the role. Something else I was unaware of. And if I’m honest, I became a little discouraged. I was discouraged because I had no idea who the prosecutor was for my community, or how she was appointed. Then, I thought of my sheriff.
Do you know if your sheriff is appointed or elected? Do you know who your local sheriff is? Do you know how long they’ve been serving and what their actual responsibilities are?
Stop me if you’ve heard this before but… I had no idea. It was actually a friend who informed me yesterday of who my current sheriff is. His name is Neil Warren, and his time might be running out. But that’s a conversation for another day.
Back to my D.A., Joyette Holmes. Her name rings a faint bell with me. Had I heard it before? It turns out I had. She’s the prosecutor for the murder case involving Ahmaud Arbery. But why? He was killed over 300 miles away from my county. It turns out several prosecutors have been involved on the case, and she’s the fourth. And while it’s probably worth discussing each prosecutor’s resignation or removal, my focus was on one recurring theme: I was unaware.
But didn’t this post start off about one man’s life sentence in Louisiana for allegedly stealing yard equipment? How is that related to my lack of awareness for elected officials in Georgia? For me the answer is simple. If we aren’t aware of the people who are put in place to govern us, is it reasonable to expect us to be aware of the processes that are put in place to govern us?
It’s that last question that won’t seem to leave my head. Because as little as I know about elected officials, I know even less about judicial proceedings and rulings! So my research transitioned from people to processes, specifically the ones involving Bryant.
But, honestly, the more I read about Bryant’s story, the more confused I became, the more frustrated I became, the more disenchanted I became. And not just because his mandatory life sentence as a “habitual offender” doesn’t address his behavior or aim to rehabilitate him as a person, although that’s part of it. It’s how his conviction seemed to revolve around semantics.
Before I looked at Bryant’s prior convictions, I discovered not every state has equal habitual offender laws. In fact, I learned Georgia has a “2 Strike” law with an emphasis on violent crime. So what does Louisiana’s law specify? It appears a fourth felony offense, whether violent or not, can result in a life sentence. Wow. So what about Bryant? What were his prior “strikes”?
First, Bryant pled guilty to armed robbery in March 1979. This is clearly a violent felony and one he didn’t deny. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was released in April of 1986.
Second, Bryan pled guilty after an arrest in September 1986 for possession of stolen things. He had items from Radio Shack valued over $500 and served two years. I’ll come back to this one.
Third, he pled guilty after an arrest in July 1990 for forgery, which is a felony. The charge stemmed from a bad check valued at $150. He served a year and a half.
Fourth, he pled guilty after an arrest in November 1991 for burglary. He stole some items from a residence and was sentenced to four years.
Yes, there is a pattern of criminal behavior. But only one offense was violent, and he served 8 years in prison for it. The rest are all non-violent and involve stealing minor things. Many argue repeated theft such as this is much more indicative of someone in poverty or an addiction.
Then comes his arrest over the hedge clippers on January 5, 1997. Charles Ray called the police at 3:30am to report suspicious activity because he thought someone was attempting to steal tools from his carport. He spotted the suspect running off and told the 911 dispatcher that a young, white male had escaped in a blue Ford Aerostar. A nearby officer quickly responded to the call and spotted a blue Aerostar driven by 39-year-old Bryant, a middle-aged black man. The officer immediately read him his rights and detained him until Ray could arrive to identify him. Upon arrival, Ray declared Bryant the culprit, despite not being young and white, after seeing a pair of hedge clippers which were the same brand he had. Bryant tried to defend himself by saying the hedge clippers were not Ray’s. But he did say he was having car trouble, and thinking he was out of gas, he did go into the carport in search of a gas can.
And unfortunately, that was probably the beginning of the end for Bryant. Never mind that Bryant, black and middle-aged, was stopped and detained after Ray described a young and white suspect. And never mind that Ray reported someone stealing tools which Bryant denied. It was Bryant’s admission that he had in fact knowingly went in search of gas for his van.
And then came the semantics. A carport is not an inhabited dwelling but the courts argued that since it is attached to the home, it is considered as such. And the court argued whether Bryant actually stole the gas can to be irrelevant, he had intent of doing so. And this was all important because it allowed him to be charged with simple burglary, which is a felony. And since Bryant was a four-time offender, the recently adopted habitual offender law permitted his life sentence. Wow.
What do you think? Is it a fair and reasonable sentence? Shouldn’t punishment fit the crime?
I said I’d come back to Bryant’s guilty plea from his arrest in 1986 involving the stolen Radio Shack items. When Bryant pled guilty, he did so under the guise that the value of the stolen items was declared between $100 and $500. However, after his admission, the D.A. changed the value to be greater than $500. Bryant pointed this out at a hearing, resulting in a confusing conversation with the judge. But the discrepancy in value didn’t affect Bryant’s guilty plea.
What’s the big deal? Why does it matter if the value was changed? Why is it important?
Because the felony theft threshold in Louisiana as of 1987 was $500. And the D.A. surely knew this. He even admitted the items were of a lesser value at the time of the hearing. But, he contested, the items were stolen during the Christmas season and the value with regards to the case should be higher because the items were valued higher when they were stolen.
Was Bryant aware that the minor difference in value resulted in another felony on his record? That’s a good question. But, personally, I think there’s a better question to ask.
Did he have any idea having the charge upgraded to a felony without vehemently debating the items’ value would somehow play a vital role in him earning a life sentence a decade later after being labeled a four-time felon because of a new habitual offender initiative?
Even if the items were lessened in value, could another felony take its place for Bryant? I don’t know. What I do know is this. Based on these specific charges, this man was declared unfit to remain in the free world. And that leaves me in utter disbelief.
As I said before, these minor thefts are often indications of living in poverty. And I wonder if anyone thought it was relevant to consider his environment and living conditions. I’m doubtful since the Court of Appeal said in 2000, not only did his large number of offenses warrant it, the life sentence was appropriate since he had already spent so long in prison as an adult.
What? He’s been in prison so long already which means his life sentence is justified? Seriously?
Do his actions make him a safety and security threat to the community? Is he a risk to society?
Also, his imprisonment affects others, not just him. Louisiana taxpayers have spent over $500,000 to pay for the last 23 years, and the cost will only go up the longer he stays incarcerated.
If there’s any good news to the story it’s that he was just granted a new parole hearing to take place on October 15, 2020. I can’t be the only one who thinks his punishment is disproportionate to his crimes. Surely the parole board will see he doesn’t deserve to remain in prison. Right?
Because of hedge clippers.