Jan. 28 CONNECTICUT----new date for impending volunteer execution US court sets serial killer execution A US court ruled that the father of a serial killer could not stop his son's execution, but delayed the lethal injection anyway, to allow a last-ditch appeal. Michael Ross, 45, was convicted of raping and murdering 8 women in the US states of New York and Connecticut in the 1980s. He long ago stopped appealing his execution. If he is put to death as scheduled on Saturday at midnight (0500 Sunday) it would be the 1st execution in the politically progressive New England region of the northeastern United States since 1960. His father, Dan Ross, asked the 3-judge appeals court to halt the execution, but the panel rejected the request, saying no father had ever been authorized to speak on behalf of his son in such cases. However, the panel moved back the execution from Saturday at 2:00 am (0700 GMT) to allow the father to appeal their decision. The elder Ross's attorney, Antonio Ponvert, said he wished to take the case to the US Supreme Court. "This is a real miscarriage of justice," Ponvert said. "My reaction is profound disappointment in our state officials, to rush ahead to try to beat the clock and execute a man whether he is competent or not." Ross's execution was initially scheduled for Wednesday, but was delayed by a Connecticut judge who wanted new psychiatric examinations to determine if the convict was mentally competent to give up his appeals and clear his own execution. However, the Connecticut judge's order was struck down by a higher court. 6 other inmates await execution in Connecticut. New England comprises Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. (source: Associated Press) ********************** Appeals Court Lifts Stay in Connecticut Execution A federal appeals court cleared the way on Friday for Connecticut to execute a serial murderer who wants to die but gave the man's father a last-minute chance to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Michael Ross, who would be the first person in 45 years executed in any of the traditionally liberal New England states, wants to waive his appeals and says he does not want his father's help to stay alive. He has admitted killing eight women in the 1980s. Ross' father, Daniel, argues in legal papers that his son suffers from a depressive disorder and lacks the mental competency to make a rational decision about dying. "I did not give my father permission to file this lawsuit," said Ross at a hearing earlier this month. "I'm fully aware of my legal options and I'm choosing not to appeal." In its ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a temporary restraining order put into place by a federal judge in Hartford, Connecticut. But it stayed its order until Sunday at 12:01 a.m. to allow Daniel Ross to appeal to the Supreme Court. Antonio Ponvert, an attorney for the elder Ross, said he would petition the highest court. "My reaction is profound disappointment in our state officials to rush ahead to beat the clock and execute a man whether he is incompetent," Ponvert told reporters. He had argued before the appeals panel that the elder Ross had a constitutionally protected right to challenge the legality of his son's death sentence, the state's death penalty process and assumptions about his son's mental capacity. However, the panel said it had not found any case law from the Supreme Court that gives a relative the right to challenge a death warrant on his own. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal assured the appeals court that if Ross were to change his mind at the last minute, "The machinery of death will stop ... the right is Michael Ross'." He said there would be someone stationed with Ross at the time of the execution to notify officials if the defendant has a change of heart. "I am pleased the rule of law was upheld," Blumenthal said of the panel's ruling. He added that state lawyers were ready to file a response when Ponvert appeals to the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the father on the grounds that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. The decision marks the 3rd time the execution has been rescheduled. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a stay of execution, ruling on a separate facet of the case. In its ruling on Friday, the Second Circuit said the implication of the Supreme Court's 1-sentence order vacating the stay leaves little room to argue that Ross is incompetent to waive his right of appeal. Ross originally was scheduled to die earlier this week. (source: Reuters) *********************** Summary of arguments Connecticut officials urged a three-judge panel on Friday to protect the "credibility of the justice system" and lift a restraining order to permit New England's 1st execution in 45 years. A 3-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York heard arguments for an hour Friday from the state and an attorney for Dan Ross, the father of serial killer Michael Ross. It then decided to overturn the restraining order, but not until 12:01 a.m. Sunday to give Ross' lawyers time to appeal for the Supreme Court. Michael Ross, 45, had been scheduled to be executed by lethal injection at 2:01 a.m. Saturday at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers. Under a warrant issued in October, the state of Connecticut has until midnight Monday to execute Ross, Blumenthal said. If Ross is not executed by then, the state must return to court to seek a new execution date. The process could delay the execution for up to six months. Ross has decided to forgo his appeals, but his father, Dan Ross, filed a civil rights lawsuit this week seeking to block the execution. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, arguing on behalf of the state, told the panel that Ross has been found competent to forgo his appeals by courts on the state and federal level. "The claim that there is meaningful evidence of incompetence has been rejected repeatedly, decisively, squarely," Blumenthal said. "The point is there must be finality for the credibility of the justice system," Blumenthal said. Antonio Ponvert III, a lawyer for Dan Ross, argued the state's determination that Ross is competent was based on a one-sided process that did not allow presentation of contradicting evidence. "The stakes are so high that due process must be allowed to run its course," Ponvert said. "Our claim is that executing Michael at a time when he may very well be incompetent ... violates Dan Ross' rights." Ponvert also introduced a letter written by inmate Ramon Lopez, 27, who is serving a 17-year prison sentence for assault and was incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution the same time Ross was there. The letter, in which Lopez alleged state mental health workers coerced Ross into volunteering to die, was discussed during a conference Thursday with U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny and attorneys for both sides. In his letter, Lopez referred to the mental health workers as "true sociopaths in disguise." "If these two individuals have had any access with Michael Ross, which I'm almost sure they have, then Michael Ross' wishes to die could have been engineered by the two aforementioned individuals," Lopez wrote. "At the very least, it raises serious questions about Michael Ross' competence," Ponvert said. Appeals Judge Robert Sack, 1 of the 3 judges hearing Friday's argument, said he was bothered by the letter. But Blumenthal blasted the letter's credibility. "It's reliability is highly suspect," Blumenthal said. The panel did not issue an immediate ruling. Both sides were prepared to take the case to the nation's highest court, which may or may not take up the appeal. The 10-day restraining order was issued Wednesday by Hartford U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny in response to a civil rights lawsuit filed by Dan Ross. Among Dan Ross' claims is that Connecticut is denying his constitutional right to associate with his son by executing him while knowing he may not be competent. Dan Ross and Connecticut's public defenders say the inmate's years on death row made him incompetent in deciding to forgo any remaining appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a heavy blow against efforts to halt the execution. The justices voted 5-4 to lift a stay of execution for Ross, who is on death row for the murders of 4 young women and girls in eastern Connecticut in the early 1980s. He has also admitted killing 4 other young women in Connecticut and New York. Chatigny issued the stay earlier this week as public defenders tried to get a new competency hearing for Ross. Among those attending Friday's hearing was Victoria Balfour, a friend to Ross' 1st known murder victim, 25-year-old Dzung Ngoc Tu. The Cornell University student's body was found near the upstate New York campus in May 1981. Ross confessed to her death several years later, but was never prosecuted. Balfour said she planned to be outside Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers when Ross is put to death to pay tribute to her college friend. "I never supported the death penalty," Balfour said. "But I'm making an exception in this case." (source: Associated Press) *********************** Court Overturns Ross Restraining Order Shortly after noon today, 3 federal appellate judges vacated a temporary restraining order on the execution of serial killer Michael Ross, scheduled for early Saturday, but then imposed a 22-hour stay on their own ruling -- until 12:01 a.m. Sunday. The delay would give Michael Ross' father, Dan Ross, time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny in Hartford issued the temporary restraining order Wednesday, in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Dan Ross. Corrections officials said they are still assessing whether they are going to keep the scheduled execution of 2:01 a.m. Saturday or postpone another day. If all the legal documents reach the U.S. Supreme Court Friday afternoon, the high court could potentially dismiss the appeal and lift the 22-hour stay. In explaining their decision, the appellate court judges said that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday in an appeal brought by the state's public defenders, it was their conclusion that Dan Ross did not establish at the district court level the "likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or raise sufficiently serious questions on the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation." The appellate panel concluded that the implications of the Supreme Court's 1-sentence order vacating a stay of execution left little room to argue that Michael Ross is incompetent. The appellate judges also concluded that Chatigny abused his discretion in entering a temporary restraining order. Friday morning state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel that the TRO should be dissolved. He said that the state's criminal justice system had to be able to depend on some sense of finality, and that the justice system would be harmed if that finality was not clear. Blumenthal stressed that the only logical inference from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday to vacate a stay of execution that Chatigny had imposed earlier in the week was that the high court rejected the argument that there was any further testimony necessary on the question of Michael Ross' mental competency. Ross, who is scheduled to be executed for killing four young women and girls in the 1980s and has admitted killing four others, said in October he had decided to forgo all further appeals available to him and proceed to his execution. That decision prompted numerous legal challenges over whether he is mentally competent to make that decision. Attorney Antonio Ponvert III, who represents Dan Ross, argued Friday morning that the state was playing "beat the warrant of execution clock" -- referring to the fact that the warrant for execution will expire Monday. The execution date was originally scheduled for Jan. 26, and the warrant gives correction officials up to five days to carry out the execution. If the warrant expires, prosecutors will have to return to court to have a new execution date set. Ponvert argued that the only thing at stake for the state is the possibility that it will have to go back to a judge and get a new execution date. "That's the only stake on the state's side," Ponvert said. "The stake on our side is death." He urged the appellate panel to stop the clock and be more deliberative. Referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to vacate the stay of execution, Ponvert said, it's not clear why the justices made their decision. And, he said, because that is not known, with a man's life hanging in the balance, it is inappropriate to guess what they might have meant and shut down any further consideration of any future claim of redress. During the arguments, the appellate judges discussed a letter that was sent by an inmate at Cheshire Correctional Institution to Chatigny. Ramon A. Lopez wrote Chatigny that he spent 3 1/2 years at Northern Correctional Institution, where Ross was incarcerated, and that he recalled talking to Ross through air vents in the prison, to ask him for legal advice. Lopez said in the letter that Ross told him he did not want to die. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Sack said during the hearing that he was bothered by the letter. Lopez also alleged in the letter that mental health staff at Northern use mental word games to manipulate inmates into feeling guilty about things, and that he was concerned Ross may have been brainwashed into deciding to go forward with his execution. Blumenthal countered that the letter came from an unreliable source and offered nothing new. He said that in the past, Ross has said he wants to die and at other times he has said the opposite. "There are a lot of ways to read that letter," Blumenthal said. (source: Hartford Courant) ******************* Spitz: What end fits such a heinous act? We look to Connecticut to see what's headed our way. If Hartford's buried under several feet of snow, it's only a matter of time before we're shoveling, too. There's another storm in Connecticut that has a lot of people here on high alert, a storm that goes by the name of Michael Ross. Ross killed eight young women between 1981 and 1984. His youngest victims were just 14 years old. He's scheduled to be the 1st person to be put to death in a New England prison since 1960. The execution, set for 2 a.m. yesterday, was delayed by a federal judge's decision Monday. Connecticut prosecutors yesterday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to override the stay of execution and it's possible Ross could be put to death tomorrow morning. It's also possible other appeals could be filed. The killer says he wants to die. According to the Associated Press, Ross wrote in a 2003 newsletter to supporters, "I honestly don't think that I can do much more of this...People show more mercy to a rabid dog. For at least they take him behind the barn and put a bullet in his head, instead of locking him in a cage and torturing him for years on end." Ross deserves to be unhappy. He raped and tortured most of his victims before killing them. He's about as reviled in Connecticut as Jeffrey Curley's killers are here. Details of the Cambridge boy's horrific final hours led to a push to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts in 1997. That was ultimately defeated by one vote when state Rep. John Slattery, D-Peabody, changed his mind. The boy's father, Robert Curley, was on the front lines of the fight. Then, one day in 2001, Curley changed his view and told reporters he no longer supported the death penalty. Molly Glidden of Natick hasn't changed her mind since her brother, George L. Hanna Jr., a state police trooper and father of three, pulled over a car in Auburn on Feb. 26, 1983. "When you see 7 bullets in your brother...someone who was just doing his job..." it makes you want justice, she said. "Part of why the death penalty works, at least for the victims is (if the killers get a life sentence), it never ends." She said she recently heard from the Worcester District Attorney's office that one of the men convicted of killing her brother now wants a new trial. "It never ends." Glidden is watching what happens in Connecticut, but thinks Gov. Mitt Romney's latest proposal to allow the death penalty in Massachusetts won't get far. "It's a cry in the wind," she said. "The closest we got was in the Curley case. "The government has too much power in these decisions. It should be the will of the people," she said. Martina Jackson of Newton worries about government involvement, too. "I am disappointed (Connecticut) Gov. (Jodi) Rell and the legislature haven't risen above the political climate," said Jackson, the executive director of Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty. "The death penalty is never about deterrence. It's about politics. "It never deterred Michael Ross. It made no dent on his conscience, if he has one," she said. "Fortunately, there aren't a lot of Michael Rosses running around, or at least I hope not." But not having a death penalty, "I really think it's a mark of civilization. "I'm the daughter of Holocaust survivors. My grandmother died at Auschwitz," Jackson said. "We've seen what can happen when governments use death as policy...I can't imagine that I would ever find peace of mind through execution...Your loved one is still gone." Like Glidden, Jackson is watching what happens at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn. "People are very concerned. It's a very grave event," said Jackson. "It's a proximate state. If you open up the execution chamber in Connecticut...it lowers the threshold. "Certainly Michael Ross did heinous crimes. But it opens up the possibility of an innocent person being put to death," she said, even though Romney says advances in DNA evidence collection and analysis make that impossible. "The thing about DNA is it's only as good as the people collecting it, and in Massachusetts, that's abysmal," said Jackson, referring to allegations of mistakes in the state medical examiner's office. "It's just perverse for Connecticut to embrace this at this time," she said. She plans to take local protesters to Somers to let their voices be heard, while Glidden will keep an eye on the news in hopes Ross is granted the wish he claims he wants. The 2 women who hope for different outcomes could probably agree on 1 factor in this case. "For him to weigh in on life and death is an absurdity," said Jackson. "He killed 8 people." (source: Opinion, Julia Spitz, Townonline) VIRGINIA: Some want to restrict, others expand the death penalty Sen. Patricia Ticer (D-Alexandria) wants to restrict the death penalty in Virginia but believes the Republican-controlled General Assembly will kill her proposal and other anti-capital-punishment legislation. Ticer's bill would restrict the death penalty to offenders who are 18 or older at the time of the capital offense. Under current law, someone who is as young as 16 and commits a capital crime may face execution in the state. Ticer believes her proposal, Senate Bill 1078, will die in the legislature because of Republicans' tough-on-crime stance and "sheer politics." "There's an inhumanity in that posture," she said. Ticer argued that all areas of a youth's brain are not fully developed until 18 and that, therefore, minors cannot fully control impulses and aggression. "This doesn't excuse violent behavior, but, because of the brain development process, they should not be subject to the death penalty," Ticer said. Ticer, who is in her 10th year as a senator, has reservations about the death penalty not only for minors but for adult offenders as well. She said a defendant could be wrongly sentenced to death by the state-and, when the person is dead, "there is no going back." SB 1078 is among a handful of anti-death-penalty bills before the Assembly this session: House Bill 1975, sponsored by Del. Vince Callahan Jr. (R-McLean) echoes Ticer's proposal. House Bill 1879, sponsored by Del. Frank Hargrove Sr. (R-Glen Allen) calls for the abolishment of the death penalty in Virginia. Senate Bill 915, sponsored by Sen. Henry L. Marsh III (D-Richmond) calls for a moratorium on all executions in Virginia. While those legislators are trying to reduce the number of executions, Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, a Republican, is trying to do the opposite. Last month, Kilgore, who is running for governor this year, proposed the Death Penalty Enhancement Act, which would expand the circumstances eligible for the death penalty. For example, he has called for the elimination of the "triggerman rule" that says, with few exceptions, that only the principal culprit in a 1st-degree murder case may be convicted of a capital offense. Kilgore has allies in the Assembly such as Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg). Obenshain has introduced Senate Bill 1177 to do away with the triggerman rule. "Part of honoring and protecting the rights of victims is punishing the violent criminals," said Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for the attorney general. "We, as the Commonwealth of Virginia, have decided that the death penalty is part of our overall approach to combating crime." Murtaugh said Virginia has a "tremendous amount of safeguards" to ensure defendants are not wrongfully executed. Those safeguards include the governor's power to pardon death row inmates and cutting-edge DNA technology that can exonerate wrongfully accused defendants. Kilgore opposes proposals to prohibit the execution of juveniles. "We agree with various court rulings that say being a year or several months shy of 18 doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong," Murtaugh said. "It's wrong to kill someone, and any 17-year-old knows that." The Virginia Alliance to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty disagrees with Kilgore's position. "Execution of juveniles is morally wrong," said Jack Payden-Travers, spokesman for the alliance. "It is a custom that has been banned by the rest of the world." The alliance includes more than 30 groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the Virginia branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Virginia Council of Churches and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington. Virginia's law allowing execution of juveniles received national attention during the 2003 trial of Lee Boyd Malvo, who was 17 when he and John Muhammad committed a series of sniper murders in the Washington area and Hanover County. Muhammad has been sentenced to death. But a Chesapeake jury recommended that Malvo be sentenced to life in prison without parole. 68 % of Americans support execution of convicted murderers, according to a Gallup Poll last December. But Americans are narrowly divided when given a choice between the death penalty and absolute life imprisonment as a punishment for murder: 50 % chose the death penalty and 46 % life imprisonment, the poll found. Of the 38 states that allow the death penalty, 1/2 forbid executing juvenile offenders, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Though Ticer does not expect the General Assembly to eliminate capital punishment for juveniles this session, she vowed to keep pushing the idea. "We'll take our chances. This needs to be said." (source: Times Community Newspapers) LOUISIANA----2 face federal death penalty Prosecutors seeking death penalty in deputy's 2004 death In New Orleans, federal prosecutors want the death penalty for 2 of 3 men charged with a bank robbery during which an off-duty sheriff's deputy was killed. All 3 - Joseph A. Smith, 53, John W. Johnson, 52, and Herbert Jones Jr., 59 were re-indicted Friday, more than a year after their original indictment in a shootout that killed Orleans Parish Deputy Sidney Zaffuto, who was doing off-duty guard work. The new indictment added a conspiracy charge against all 3 men, who already were charged with armed bank robbery resulting in death and using a firearm in a violent crime. It also adds "special findings" against Smith and Johnson, making the death penalty possible if they are convicted of either the bank robbery-death charge - which otherwise would carry a mandatory life sentence - or the weapons charge. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty against both, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said in a news release. The shootout occurred Jan. 8, 2004, at an IberiaBank branch in Algiers, the part of New Orleans on the Mississippi River's West Bank. Three masked men entered the bank and immediately accosted and disarmed Zaffuto. One was holding a pistol to Zaffuto's head when a 2nd guard - off-duty sheriff's Capt. Andrew Jenkins, 48 - walked in from the rear of the bank. The indictment did not say who fired the bullet that hit Zaffuto in the chest. Jenkins was shot in the leg. New Orleans police and 2 Coast Guard officers chased the robbers down. (source: Associated Press) USA: 'The Exonerated', with Susan Sarandon, will re-broadcast Saturday, January 29 at 4 pm, Eastern, and Sunday, January 30 at 2 pm, Eastern. KENTUCKY: Cottrell: Killing was unintended----Man says he was defending himself In Elizabethtown, on trial for his life, Josh Cottrell testified yesterday that he punched Richie Phillips repeatedly "with everything I had" but he never meant to kill Phillips. Given similar circumstances, Cottrell testified, he'd do the same thing again to defend himself against an unwanted sexual advance. "Ma'am, he put his hands on me where a man should not put his hands on another man," Cottrell said under cross-examination by prosecutor Susan Marie Streible. "I did not kill him intentionally," he said. Cottrell's testimony at his murder trial came after his aunt testified that he had told her that he had planned the killing and strangled Phillips with a strap from his suitcase. On the stand yesterday in Hardin Circuit Court, Cottrell, 23, repeatedly denied that, and said that he'd do what he did again if a man tried to force him into sex. Cottrell said he left Phillips lying on the floor after beating him in Cottrell's motel room early on the evening of June 17, 2003. When he returned about 25 minutes later, he said, he had expected to find Phillips gone. Instead, Phillips was sprawled motionless on the floor of the room. "I started to shake him, and tried to get him to come to," Cottrell testified. "My first reaction was to call the ambulance. Then I thought about calling 911. "But I was just unsure how to explain it," he said. "What am I going to say, 'I just had a fight in here, and there is a guy dead in my hotel room?' I just couldn't see calling the police." Cottrell told jurors he decided to put Phillips in the suitcase "because I didn't want to see the body." Later that night he took the suitcase to a bridge in Breckinridge County and dropped it into Rough River Lake, where it was found about a week later. The death of Phillips, 36, sparked a outcry from gay-rights activists in Kentucky who said the case raised concerns about anti-gay bias. Andrea Hildebran, executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, a gay-rights group with offices throughout the state, denounced what she called a "gay-panic defense." "This kind of defense is intended to appeal to bigotry rather than rational thought," Hildebran said. "The 'gay-panic' defense is always a last-ditch effort to escape the consequences of a heinous crime such as this." K.A. Owens of the Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression called the defense "unprincipled." "It fans the flames of hatred and should not be used." Closing arguments at Cottrell's trial are expected today or Monday. The jury of eight men and six women, including two alternates who will be dismissed before deliberations begin, can recommend the death penalty for Cottrell only if they convict him of murder and find an aggravating circumstance, such as robbery. Prosecutors have conceded they must overcome the defense's argument that Kentucky law gave Cottrell legal justification to use deadly force if he believed he was doing so to prevent a rape or sodomy. On the day he died, Phillips had picked up Cottrell at the motel room to drive him around Elizabethtown to collect job applications. When they returned, Cottrell said, Phillips followed him into his room uninvited. Cottrell testified that Phillips told him that he wanted to have sex. Cottrell said he then told Phillips to get out of the room, but that Phillips instead approached him and grabbed him. That's when he began hitting Phillips, Cottrell testified. "I hit him as hard as I could a couple of times, and grabbed him in a headlock and brought him to the ground," Cottrell said. "But he kept pulling at me and tugging at me. Then I hit him as hard as I could, as many times as I could." Cottrell acknowledged that Phillips didn't punch him. ******************** Life term favored for woman who hired son to kill husband A Jefferson Circuit Court jury spared Vicki Monroe the death penalty yesterday for hiring her son to kill her husband, but it recommended that she spend the rest of her life in prison. Gerald Monroe, 44, was shot twice in the head on June 1, 2002, in his Bulls and Bears bar on Fegenbush Lane. Shortly after the recommendation was read, several jurors -- some in tears -- offered hugs and condolences to Angel Monroe, the victim's daughter. Most of the jurors then stayed in the courtroom as Vicki Monroe's attorneys asked for a mistrial because two jurors were seen reading copies of The Courier-Journal before they deliberated yesterday. The jury had been instructed to stay away from all media accounts of the trial. Two jurors had told Judge Steve Mershon earlier that they had read parts of the paper, but not the article about Monroe's trial. Mershon denied the mistrial motion and set sentencing for March 23. If she is sentenced to life in prison, Monroe would be eligible for parole after 20 years. Late Wednesday, the jury found Monroe guilty of murder. Last year, a jury found her son, Leslie Emerson, guilty of murder in his stepfather's death. Prosecutors said Vicki Monroe gave Emerson $3,000 to hire someone to kill her husband. Instead, Emerson shot Gerald Monroe. This was Vicki Monroe's 2nd trial on the charges; her 1st ended with a deadlocked jury in March 2003. During that trial, a robbery charge against Monroe was dismissed. The jury could have recommended the death penalty for Monroe because prosecutors alleged that profit was a motive in the killing, including $50,000 in life insurance. Outside the courtroom yesterday, Angel Monroe said her family was relieved that "justice has been served." "I can begin to live again," she said. Angel Monroe said she would work to get her father's cremated remains, which were given to Vicki Monroe. "We would like to put my father to rest," she said. Vicki Monroe's family declined to comment as they left court yesterday. One of her attorneys, Cynthia Crick, said Monroe has maintained her innocence and was saddened by the verdict. Crick said the case would be appealed. (source for both: Courier-Journal)
