March 4 CALIFORNIA: Calif. high court vacates death sentence The state Supreme Court tossed out the death sentence of an immigrant convicted of the same murder as another man, ruling Thursday that prosecutors committed misconduct by telling separate juries that each defendant had delivered the fatal blow. Peter Sakarias was the 2nd of 2 Estonian men sentenced to death for the 1988 hatchet slaying of a 52-year-old woman. In overturning his sentence, the Supreme Court noted that a Los Angeles County prosecutor told jurors that Sakarias' hatchet blows "finally ended" Viivi Piirisild's life. The same prosecutor maintained in an earlier trial that another man involved in the slaying cast "the death blow." Such "inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories" violated Sakarias' right to a fair trial and undermined "the goal of the criminal trial as a search for truth," the court said in a 6-1 ruling. The justices let stand the death sentence of the 1st man, Tauno Waidla, who like Sakarias was 21 at the time of the slaying. Assessing "the great weight of the evidence available," the court said Waidla's actions "likely" killed the woman. The court's decision upheld Sakarias' murder conviction, but overturned the death penalty phase of his trial. Both defendants deserted the Soviet army and came to Los Angeles in 1987. They attacked the woman with a hatchet and knife while breaking into her house in 1988. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office did not immediately comment. Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office had argued prosecutor Steven Ipsen's inconsistent arguments were "trivial" and both juries would have reached the same conclusion even without Ipsen's "melodramatic" arguments. Sakarias' attorney, Cliff Gardner, said Ipsen's conduct "was egregious and it's a travesty that the state defended it." Ipsen did not return calls for comment. ********************** Trial of man accused in deaths of 9 of his children begins The trial of a man charged with killing 9 of his children opened Thursday with a prosecutor describing the panic of 2 women who tried to get their children out of his home. It was mid-afternoon last March 12 when police responded to a domestic call at the Fresno home of Marcus Wesson. They found two women, surrounded by friends and relatives, trying to retrieve children they had left in Wesson's care. One of the women, 28-year-old Sofina Solorio, was able to see her child briefly before she was shoved aside and Wesson retreated inside the home, Deputy District Attorney Lisa Gamoian said during opening statements in Wesson's murder trial. "That's the last time she saw her son alive," Gamoian said. She said the women were hysterical at not being able to get their children and feared Wesson would harm them. After Wesson surrendered hour later, police entered the house and found the children dead. 8 ranged in age from 1 to 17; the other was a 25-year-old daughter. Gamoian said all but the 1-year-old were shot through the right eye with a .22-caliber handgun. That child was shot in the left eye. Wesson is charged with murdering the nine children and with sexually molesting several of his young female relatives. If convicted, he could be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. He has pleaded innocent to all charges. Wesson's attorney, Pete Jones, has claimed in court papers that his client's daughter, Sebhrenah, shot the victims before killing herself. He noted that Wesson did not have gunshot residue on his hands when he was arrested. On Thursday, Gamoian told the jury of 7 women and 5 men that investigators found no identifiable prints on the gun used in the shooting and no gunshot residue on Wesson or the victims. She also outlined Wesson's secretive life, describing how he began a relationship with a woman 30 years ago and began a nomadic lifestyle. At the age of 27, Wesson impregnated and married the woman's 14-year-old daughter, Gamoian said. Over the years, Wesson would father several children and have sex with some of his daughters, prosecutors allege. Gamoian also said he segregated his boys and girls, demanded Bible study for several hours a day and beat his children with baseball bats. The women and girls under Wesson's care were not allowed to wear pants and had to cover their heads, she said. The 5-foot-9 Wesson, now 58, was a burly 300-pounds when he was arrested. In court Thursday, he appeared much thinner but continued to sport his long dreadlocks. Wearing a black, short-sleeved shirt and reading glasses, he stared straight ahead as the prosecutor described the events of last March and his early life. His attorney had argued for a change of venue, saying Wesson could not get a fair trial in Fresno County. Jones said news accounts had compared his client to figures such as Charles Manson, David Koresh and Jeffrey Dahmer. Jones also tried to include blacks on the jury because Wesson is black. The jury consists of whites and Hispanics. (source for both: Associated Press) **************************** High Court Condemns Conduct of Prosecutor The California Supreme Court, condemning a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney's conduct in a death penalty case, ruled Thursday that prosecutors should not intentionally tell different juries that 2 defendants committed the same crime when only one could have been responsible. In 1988, two men, Peter Sakarias and Tauno Waidla, attacked Viivi Piirisild with a hatchet and a knife in her North Hollywood home. The men had separate trials. In both, the court found, Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven Ipsen, the prosecutor, "inconsistently and falsely" told jurors that it was the defendant before them who had delivered the deathblow. Both men were convicted and sentenced to death. Thursday's 6-1 ruling overturned the death sentence for Sakarias. The court allowed Waidla's death sentence, saying that enough evidence supported it. The justices said Ipsen, now a vice president of the State Bar of California, had manipulated the evidence "intentionally and without good-faith justification." "The prosecutor's unjustified use of inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories to convict two people of a crime only one could have committed - or to obtain harsher sentences for both on the basis of an act only one could have committed - violates due process," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority. A spokesman for state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who had defended the use of inconsistent arguments, said the ruling would give "clear guidance" that prosecutors "should settle on one theory and argue it consistently." "While another case may come down the road where things are highly ambiguous, the caution to district attorneys is to err on the side of identifying a single theory," Lockyer's spokesman said. The court's opinion noted that under some circumstances, a significant change in evidence might justify a prosecutor's changing his or her theory between trials. Cliff Gardner, an attorney for Sakarias, said Lockyer's warning to prosecutors was long overdue. "The state should not have defended this prosecutor for 10 years," Gardner said. "The vast number of prosecutors would never try a stunt like this. This guy got caught, and the state should have 'fessed up earlier." Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said he was concerned that the court had found that Ipsen acted in bad faith and that he would "take appropriate action" after further review of the ruling. "Prosecutors must be candid and truthful in all dealings with the court and counsel," Cooley said. "Candor includes never seeking to mislead a court or jury." Cooley said a committee would decide whether to hold another trial on Sakarias' sentence. Without a retrial, Sakarias would automatically receive a life sentence without possibility of parole. Ipsen, who could not be reached Thursday, said last month that he altered his arguments between trials because his view of the evidence had changed. Legal ethicists generally say that prosecutors should not present inconsistent arguments when they know that one must be false. Courts, however, have been divided over how far prosecutors can go. Justice Marvin R. Baxter dissented in Thursday's ruling. As long as Ipsen didn't falsify the evidence, he had the right to make the best case against each defendant, Baxter said. "There is no doubt that Sakarias and Waidla together committed the 1st-degree murder of Viivi Piirisild with special circumstances, and that both men were enthusiastic participants in the gruesome attack," Baxter wrote. Sakarias and Waidla, Estonians who had been conscripted into the Soviet army, escaped into what was then West Germany and eventually settled in the United States. They met Piirisild through Estonian community groups in Los Angeles. Piirisild, an Estonian community activist, and her husband befriended the two men. They invited Waidla to live with them, giving him household jobs to pay for his room and board. Sakarias visited. Eventually, the relationship between the Piirisilds and Waidla soured, and he moved out. On a July morning, when the Piirisilds were away, Waidla and Sakarias broke into their home. When Viivi Piirisild returned, the two men attacked her with a hatchet and a knife. After killing her, they stole her credit cards and jewelry. They were arrested near the Canadian border weeks later. The coroner said Piirisild had died of multiple wounds, several of which could have been fatal. According to statements by the defendants, Waidla had attacked Piirisild with the blunt end of the hatchet in the living room when she entered the door. Sakarias used a knife to stab her. The two men then dragged her body back to a bedroom, where Sakarias said he hit her twice more with the hatchet. The coroner said the victim had a scrape on her back that was consistent with having been dragged. The scrape was made after her death, the coroner said. Waidla was tried first. It was Ipsen's 1st murder case. Ipsen suggested to the jury that Waidla had inflicted the massive strike that he called "the deathblow," in the living room. Ipsen said the scrape on the victim's back proved that she was dead when she was dragged into the bedroom. About eight months later, Sakarias went to trial. This time, Ipsen argued that Sakarias, not Waidla, had "finally ended" Piirisild's life with a strong blow from the hatchet blade. In Sakarias' trial, Ipsen contended that the woman had died in the bedroom, not in the living room. This time, he did not tell the jury about the scrape on her back. Both Sakarias and Waidla challenged their death sentences on the grounds that their due process rights to a fair trial had been violated by Ipsen's use of contradictory arguments. The California Supreme Court appointed a referee to determine what happened in the two trials. After a hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Thomas Willhite Jr. concluded that Ipsen had made "an intentional strategic decision . to maximize the portrayal of each defendant's culpability." The judge found that "the great weight of evidence" indicated that Piirisild had died in the living room, before Sakarias chopped at her head in the bedroom. In upholding Waidla's sentence, Werdegar said it was appropriate to do so "where the probable truth of the situation can be determined - where we are able to say which of the prosecution theories was likely true and which false." The justices declined to say what they would have done in a case where the evidence was completely ambiguous and the truth could not be discerned. (source: Los Angeles Times) ARIZONA: Death penalty won't be sought in slaying case In Tucson, prosecutors have decided against seeking the death penalty against a doctor accused of hiring a hit man to kill his former medical associate. Doctor David Stidham was found beaten and stabbed to death outside his Tucson office on October 5th, 2004. 10 days later, Doctor Bradley Schwartz and another man, identified as Ronald Bruce Bigger, were arrested 10 days later. Schwartz and Bigger face 1st-degree-murder charges in the case. Investigators contend Bigger was hired by Schwartz to kill Stidham. Authorities say Stidham and Schwartz had a falling-out after Schwartz's career was nearly destroyed by drug charges and Stidham went off to form his own practice. (source: KOLD News) ******************* Mom avoids death penalty in son's murder A jury on Thursday spared the life of a mother they'd found guilty of murdering her 19-month-old child. Candy Ramirez will face Judge Warren Granville of Maricopa County Superior Court again on April 8 to learn if she will spend her life in prison or if she will be eligible for parole on the murder count after 35 years. Jurors returned the verdict less than 45 minutes after they began deliberating, following a morning of statements from Ramirez's family. "I was surprised they came back so quickly with life," said her attorney, Herman Alcantar. "I think she was relieved," he said of his client. "She thought for sure she was going to receive the death penalty." Ramirez, 31, will also be sentenced on 1 count of child abuse, which carries a sentence of 10 to 24 years in prison, which would have to be served after her murder sentence. Under Arizona law, once a jury decides against the death penalty, which happens infrequently, the judge must decide whether to impose a sentence of natural life in prison with no chance of release or parole, or life in prison with the possibility of parole after 35 years. But given the child-abuse sentence, the earliest Ramirez could get out of prison is in 45 years. The trial dealt with charges of first-degree "felony" murder and two counts of child abuse in the March 2001 death of her son, Alex. Prosecutors theorized that Ramirez had thrown the child into his crib at her Phoenix home and then failed to take him to the hospital. Ramirez has yet to stand trial on 3 other counts of child abuse that were separated from the murder trial. Adam Tarango, the father of another of Ramirez's children, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death and testified against Ramirez in exchange for a 5-year prison sentence. Their daughter, who was present at the sentencing Thursday, also testified against her mother. Felony murder means that the death occurred during the commission of another felony, in this case either of the 2 child-abuse counts. And although the jury on Feb. 16 found Ramirez guilty of the murder and of withholding medical attention, it could not agree that Ramirez actually threw the child into his crib. Neither jurors, nor Ramirez's relatives would comment. (source: Arizona Republic) NEW JERSEY: N.Y. man guilty of capital murder in killing of Barnegat pair A 23-year-old Bronx man could face the death penalty after a jury in Ocean County yesterday convicted him of capital murder in the execution-style killings of a Barnegat woman and her son. After 2 days of deliberations, the jury of 8 men and 4 women returned guilty verdicts to all 13 charges against Dwayne Gillispie in the Nov. 28, 2000, torture slayings of Christine Staton and Lonell T. Michael. The most serious findings -- that Gillispie committed the murders "by his own conduct" -- ensured that the trial would move into the penalty phase. The jurors, who appeared drained but not emotional, will return March 15 to start a mini-trial on whether Gillispie should be put to death by lethal injection or spend the rest of his life in prison. Relatives of the victims, who attended the trial in large numbers since it started Jan. 26, suppressed sighs of relief and excitement yesterday as the jury foreman read the verdicts to a hushed courtroom ringed by nearly a dozen sheriff's officers and corrections officers. Outside the courthouse, they expressed their thanks to police, prosecutors and the jurors. "This is what we wanted," said Thomas Peterson, 37, of Mount Holly, one of Staton's four sons. "Now, hopefully, the penalty phase goes just as well." The case, one of Ocean County's longest to wait for trial, was filled with delays that included a changing of the defense team and the discovery of key information from one of the suspects. Assistant Prosecutors William Cunningham and Michel Paulhus contended Gillispie and 2 other New York men concocted a scheme to rob Michael, a drug dealer, of money and a cocaine stash. One of those suspects, Keith Mercer, 42, of Brooklyn, testified Gillispie and his uncle, Gregory Buttler, tortured Staton and Michael in her Barnegat condominium to get information about the location of drugs and money. With the mother and son bound by their hands and ankles and tied together, Gillispie repeatedly slit Staton's throat while Buttler forced Michael -- who had been choked with thermal underwear -- to watch, Mercer testified. He said Gillispie shot both of them in the head, using a pillow to muffle the shots. Authorities said Staton was a hard-working woman who raised 4 sons and struggled to keep Michael, the youngest, from getting into trouble. Defense attorneys argued Gillispie was not involved in the killings and was being made the scapegoat by others trying to save their own lives. After the verdict yesterday, defense attorney Lucas Phillips said he was "disappointed," but would begin preparing for the penalty phase. Gillispie's aunt, who was in the courtroom as the verdict was read, declined to comment. Mercer initially pleaded guilty to armed robbery, but when investigators learned he had more of a role in the planning of the robbery, they rescinded the deal and he pleaded guilty to 2 counts of aggravated manslaughter. He faces between 10 and 30 years in prison. Buttler, 50, of the Bronx, will be tried on murder charges after this trial, although his does not involve capital punishment. Staton's oldest son, Kirk Peterson, 40, of Burlington County, had harsh words for the trio. "If it was up to me and my family, all three of them would get the death penalty," he said. "But sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little." Ocean County Prosecutor Thomas Kelaher was cautious in his reaction, citing the upcoming penalty phase. "The verdict speaks for itself," he said. We always felt there was ample evidence to convict the defendant of the crimes he was charged with." In addition to 2 counts of murder, Gillispie was convicted of 2 counts each of conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder and armed robbery, 2 weapons offenses, 2 burglary offenses and a theft charge. (soure: Newark Star-Ledger) OHIO: Supermax to get death row? -- The Youngstown Supermax is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case. The state prisons department is considering moving its 200-prisoner death row to the Ohio State Penitentiary, the Supermax prison on Coitsville-Hubbard Road in Youngstown. Andrea Dean, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, confirmed that talks on moving death row inmates from the Mansfield Correctional Institution were in "informal stages" now. "There's nothing concrete," Dean said Thursday. "It was just a thought that was thrown out." Numbers There are 201 inmates on death row, Dean said. 6 killers facing the death penalty are already housed at the Supermax, including 4 inmates involved in the 1993 riots at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville that spurred the construction of the Ohio State Penitentiary. An additional 194 male prisoners are on death row in Mansfield, according to news reports. One female death row inmate would continue to be held at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, Dean said. The Death House, where condemned inmates are executed by lethal injection, would remain at the Lucasville prison, Dean said. Opened in 1998, the Supermax is designed for 502 prisoners who spend most of the day alone in cells with solid doors. The lights are never shut off, and amenities are scarce. Though it is described by the prisons department as being the home of the "worst of the worst," half the current prisoners are listed by the corrections department as level 1 or medium security who are subject to a far less restrictive living environment. Yet they are being held at a facility where it costs $157 per day to house a prisoner, vs. $57 per day at a typical medium-security facility such as Mansfield. Corrections officials were unavailable to discuss whether moving 200 death row inmates to Youngstown would mean shipping hundreds of other prisoners, presumably those classified as medium security, to other state prisons. Supreme Court case The Youngstown Supermax is at the center of a case to be heard this spring by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether assignment to a supermaximum-security prison is by itself so significant a change from normal incarceration that there needs to be a more formal hearing process of assigning prisoners to it. The court is also being asked to decide whether there needs to be a more transparent process for a prisoner to work his way out of a supermax with good behavior. The case came out of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of present and former inmates. A federal district court in Akron ruled in 2002 that the standards were "arbitrary" and noted that many prisoners were sent to the supermax merely because the Ohio built such a large supermaximum security prison well beyond its needs. Though the state agreed to make changes to satisfy health-care issues raised at the trial and built an outdoor recreation area, the state appealed on the issue of whether its process of assigning prisoners to the Supermax were arbitrary. In February 2004, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. Of the 465 prisoners assigned to the Supermax, 55 of them are level 5 and 180 are level 4, designations that subject them to the tough enviroment of a Supermax. But 230 are considered level 1 or medium security, whose status at the Supermax is more unusual. If the state loses before the Supreme Court, it is possible that they would have been compelled to move many of the medium-security prisoners anyway. (source: Youngstown Vindicator)
