Juan Martinez: A Prosecutor's Success

by Women In Crime Ink

As the jury determines in the next few days whether convicted killer Jodi Arias should serve life in prison or get the death penalty, we thought we'd take a look back at this sensational case and voice our opinions on what went right.

If you've followed the case, you know that after a four-month trial, 32-year-old Arias was convicted of killing ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in his Phoenix townhouse. It was a particularly grizzly murder, with Arias stabbing Alexander 29 times, most of which were in the back, slitting his throat, and shooting him once in the head. Alexander, 30, didn't stand a chance.

While the final phase of the trial -- the sentencing -- winds down, this seems like the perfect time to take a look back and ask this question:

During the trial, what did Deputy District Attorney Juan Martinez do best to win a guilty verdict?

Here's what some of our WCI bloggers had to say:

Donna Pendergast: The facts in the Jodi Arias case speak for themselves. In terms of a prosecution case, it doesn't get much better than this. Her story of self defense was negated by the physical evidence, her false statements and her manipulative testimony, which came across as very calculated.

Jurors are not stupid and they don't like to be played like they are. Although we have seen a few high-profile cases in the news where the verdict seemingly was inconsistent with the evidence, in most circumstances jurors try to do the right thing. They saw right through Jodi Arias and delivered a verdict consistent with the overwhelming evidence. As a prosecutor, I think that Juan Martinez overdid the histrionics, but I can't quarrel with success.

Gina Simmons: Jurors had a chance to witness Jodi Arias lie frequently and with incredible detail over a long period of time. Psychopaths can create detailed pictures with their lies. These self-serving pictures can appear so convincing that jurors might find it hard to believe that they were completely created from imagination. Jurors got a close-up view of a pathological liar. Psychologically, this close-up view might make it difficult for some jurors to give her the death penalty. 

Robin Sax: If this case shows anything at all it's that the public (even post-OJ) has an insatiable appetite for a good crime story. This had it all: Sex, lies, photos, and a frighteningly smart narcissistic defendant. While Juan Martinez was certainly passionate, he did not make the same mistakes many high-profile prosecutors have made in the past, and that is he didn't drink his own Kool Aid. He spent the time proving each element, painting a picture, and presenting a strong case. Of course, Jodi helped with unbelievable lies, horrific evidence and narcissism that spoke volumes.

Katherine Scardino: As a defense attorney, I agree that this was a dream case for the prosecution. I would have handled her defense in a much more realistic manner. First of all, she would never have spent a minute on the stand much less 19 days. Bad lawyering for her. But seems like Guilty verdict is the right one.

Cathy Scott: The interesting thing in this case was how Martinez brought the pieces of the puzzle together for the jury in his closing. Some things he brought out didn't make sense during the trial, at least to me, until he laid it all out in the end. It was brilliant, and it worked.

Tweet

Justice: An Elusive Concept

by Donna Pendergast

The concept of justice is sprinkled throughout the scriptures and is an ideal that is sought in many arenas of daily life. People seek justice to create a proper ordering of random things and persons within a society, in the enforcement of laws, to solve disagreements between persons and in response to criminal behavior.

But what is true justice in the case of an almost unimaginable act of criminal depravity? What is justice for a purposeful act of harm and violence where one persons gratification comes from stealing the life of another human being? In the case of a purposeful serial murderer like Coral Watts, who may have murdered as many as a hundred beautiful and talented women, can there ever really be justice for the family and friends who were the peripheral victims of such a diabolical and depraved predator?

I struggle with these concepts on a daily basis while prosecuting homicide cases and when dealing with the survivors, the family and the friends of a person whose life was callously snuffed out by by an act of senseless violence. In the depths of pain and misery survivors look to the prosecutor to guide them through the nuances of an unfamiliar criminal justice system and to obtain justice for them for an incomprehensible loss. Often the families look to the prosecutor as a sort of lifeboat who will save them from disaster and fix the circumstances that put them in touch with the justice system. Unfortunately, as prosecutors we can't fix anything we can only try to do justice, whatever that is, by seeking a conviction.

In seeking justice for the survivors, there are things that you learn, some of them the hard way. After having prosecuting over 100 murder trials I have learned NOT to say "I understand how you feel." As one survivor pointed out very early on, I don't understand how they feel and never could. Instead I've learned to say "I understand that I can't understand what you are going through but I have dealt with other families in this situation many times before and here is the benefit of my experience.

I have also learned to expect what often happens after a verdict even if it's a favorable verdict. Many survivors describe a hollow feeling after a jury verdict in a homicide trial because even a guilty verdict will never bring back a loved one. Accordingly, I've learned to caution families that there will likely be a letdown after the verdict as they adjust to the new reality that the fight is over but the pain goes on. The mother of a man beat to death by a pack of savage brothers and their friends several levels below "Deliverance" grade caliber once said to me after the verdict "I thought I would feel better but I don't," not a surprisingly revelation considering the testimony that she had to sit through including the fact that her son and his friend had been chopped up and fed to pigs. It was closure after eighteen long years of wondering what had happened to her son who had disappeared while on a hunting trip up north, but closure at a terrible cost.

But the question remains "Is a jury verdict that one is guilty of homicide and subsequent resultant incarceration in prison true justice?" The dictionary defines justice in a number of ways. One definition defines justice as the ideal morally correct state of things and persons. Another entry defines justice a what is fair.

The question remains whether or not anything can be morally correct or fair when dealing with the senseless obliteration of a human life. Without delving into the complex and gut wrenching arena and dodging the land mines associated with the debate over the death penalty (maybe a subject for another day) I've come to the conclusion that there is no true justice for survivors rather justice as we can best do it under a horrendous set of circumstances and with an imperfect system.

Unfortunately true justice and true closure for the survivors remains an impossible dream.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinion or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

The Death Penalty, Back in the News

by Holly Hughes

It’s been a busy week for the death penalty in American jurisprudence.  We seldom hear so much about it from simultaneous corners.  From Texas to Georgia to Connecticut, we have seen it take center stage this week. What I find fascinating are the varied reactions to each of these individuals cases.

Troy Davis was convicted nearly two decades ago for the murder of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail.  In the ensuing twenty two years since that murder, Davis’ case has been heard by twenty eight different courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.  His legal team sought clemency from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole Board twice.  Thanks to the advent of social media Troy’s case generated enough attention to collect over 600,000 signatures calling for a stay.  There were protests staged at the Georgia State Capitol Building and the Georgia Diagnostic Classification Prison where Davis’ execution was carried out.  Former Presidents and Popes weighed in.  

A lot of the news coverage stated emphatically that there was no physical evidence.  Other media outlets briefly acknowledged that there was some, ie: the shell casings, which matched  casings from another shooting that Davis had been convicted of.  Much was made about the seven recantations, but little was mentioned about the fact that it took seventeen years for those recantations to occur.

I am not weighing in on the guilt or innocence of Troy Davis.  I have not read the transcripts, nor watched any interviews of witnesses.  I am simply commenting on the fact that most of the reporting on this particular case was inaccurate or incomplete at best.  However, it garnered a lot of attention and gave opponents of the death penalty a great deal of ammunition in their argument against the death penalty.

At the same time, in Texas, another man was scheduled to be, and ultimately was, executed.  We didn’t see this one widely reported.  In fact, it passed relatively unnoticed.  On the very same day that Georgia executed Troy Davis, the State of Texas put to death Lawrence Russell Brewer.  Brewer was convicted of the horrific murder of James Byrd, Jr. back in 1998.  Brewer, along with his two co-defendants in the case, committed unspeakable violence against Mr. Byrd simply because he was African-American.  It was a hate crime pure and simple.  But there was nothing pure or simple about the inhuman acts perpetrated against Mr. Byrd.  He was beaten unconsciousness, urinated on, tied by the ankles with a heavy chain and drug behind a truck until his arm and head were severed from his body.  

While Texas and Georgia were carrying out death sentences, Connecticut was seeking to have one handed down.  This brings us to the case of Joshua Komisarjevsky.  This is the monster who broke into the Petit family home, beat Dr. Petit unconscious and tied him up.  Once that was done, he then, along with his co-defendant, Stephen Hayes, sexually assaulted the Doctor’s wife and two daughters, the youngest of which was eleven years old.  When that was done, Komisarjevsky took Mrs. Petit to the bank and forced her to withdraw fifteen thousand dollars.  As if all of these abuses were not enough, when they returned to the house, these two monsters tied all the women to their beds and set the house on fire, burning them alive.

Prior to this case, the State of Connecticut was debating abolishing the death penalty.  These crimes put a quick stop to that.  In the face of such evil, the people decided  they needed the death penalty, they wanted the death penalty and they were going to seek the death penalty.  They got it.  Last year, co-defendant Stephen Hayes was sentenced to death.

So, the question that arises is: why did we not see 600,000 signatures calling for a stay for Lawrence Russell Brewer?  Why are there no protests outside the Connecticut courthouse where prosecutors are currently seeking the death penalty against Komisarjevsky? Now, the easy answer is “there was little to no evidence against Troy Davis.”  Well, who gets to make that decision?  A jury of his peers, yes, his peers.  Seven of the original twelve jurors were African-American.  

Twenty eight different courts reviewed this case and felt that the evidence was strong enough, even in light of the late-in-the-day recantations. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, allowing social media to dictate who gets executed and who doesn’t turns the justice system into nothing more than a version of Survivor (no pun intended).  No one should be voted off the island but people who weren’t even involved in the game.

Again, I cannot say whether or not Troy Davis was guilty.  I am simply asking the question, “what can we learn” from this past weeks’ multiple death cases.  If you believe the death penalty is wrong, then it’s wrong for everyone, including the monsters who commit unspeakable horrors against their fellow human beings, sometimes for no other reason than prejudice.

If the problem is with the application, then how do we fix it?  Lobby legislatures?  Call for one uniform application of the death penalty, which would be forced on all states by the federal government?  I don’t pretend to have the answers.  I will leave that to minds greater than my own.  But I find it an interesting dichotomy that the folks who oppose the unequal application of the death penalty are themselves unequal in their passion of whom they choose to rally for.

Tweet

From Hope Spring Drive to Pear Tree Lane

by Holly Hughes

Google the name Jadon Higganbothan and you might get ten hits or so.  Google Pear Tree Lane in Durham, North Carolina and you’ll probably get even less.  On the other hand, Google Caylee Anthony or Hope Spring Drive and you’ll never be able to read all that has been written concerning those two subjects.  Now, don’t get me wrong, it was a horrible tragedy what happened to Caylee and we were all right to be indignant over her death.  But the sad truth is there are hundreds of thousands of children who are murdered everyday by the very people who are supposed to love and protect them.  This brings me to the case of Jadon Higganbothan.  Jadon was a brown skinned little cutie with big brown eyes and an infectious smile.  He was living with his mother at Pear Tree Lane when he met his untimely death.  But, they weren’t the only ones living there.  And Jadon wasn’t the only one to “disappear” while living there.

Peter Lucas Moses, 27, was living there and was the leader of a group called The Black Hebrews.  Some have called it a cult, others a religious sect.  The label doesn’t matter to me.  What matters to me are the horrendous acts that allegedly took place there.  And the fact that no one in main stream media seems to have picked up on this tragedy.  

Jadon was four years old when one of the other women... oh, did I mention this was a polygamist sect?  When one of the other women reported to “Lord", yes, that’s what they called Peter Lucas Moses, that Jadon had swatted another child on the bottom.  In response to this childish, playful act, Peter Lucas Moses took little Jadon into the garage, turned on the music of the Lord’s prayer, took a gun, held it to the four year old’s head and pulled the trigger.  

Why? You might ask.  Why, because Jadon was gay, of course. Yes, folks, that is the crazy, illogical conclusion that Moses jumped to after hearing about Jadon’s playing.  If that isn’t horrific enough, not only does he jump to a conclusion that may or may not be true, but then, he murders a four year old in reaction to that conclusion.  The murder isn’t the only obscenity here.  Several women living in the house, including Jadon’s own mother, then cleaned up the bloody body and put it in a suitcase and stored it in the attic.  That is, until Moses began to complain about the stench.  Then his poor little body was stuffed into a garbage bag, just like Caylee, and buried in the back yard of another home the "cult" owned.  

Meanwhile, his mother, Vania Sisk, doesn’t run off and report this to the police.  No, she continuously lies about Jadon’s whereabouts and then goes on to follow in her “Lord’s” footsteps.  Yes, that’s right, she took the gun (which was hers by the way) and shot another member of the “cult” when she tried to escape.  

Antoinetta Yvonne McKoy was 28 when she moved from Washington, D.C. to Durham, North Carolina.  Relatives began to worry about her when she never phoned her mother on her birthday.  An investigation was launched that led straight to the door of Peter Lucas Moses. Antoinetta committed the unforgivable sin of trying to leave.  That is what got her her death sentence.  After the violence and abuse got to be too much, she ran out of the house, banged on a neighbor’s door and begged to use her cell phone.  The neighbor told police later she thought Antoinetta was just a mental patient and never called anyone.  This, despite the fact that two other women ran after Antoinetta and dragged her back into the house, kicking and screaming.  Once inside, the two women began to beat her mercilessly and even tried to strangle her with an extension cord.  When that didn’t work, Moses got out Vania’s gun, handed it to her and pronounced the sentence.  She too, must die.  So Vania Sisk, instead of turning the gun that she now had in her own hands on the man who murdered her child, simply followed his commands and shot the 28 year old young woman in front of her.  Antoinetta was then unceremoniously dumped into garbage bags, and eventually her and Jadon were buried together behind a house on Ashe street.  

In June 2011, seven months after anyone had seen Jadon alive and six months after Antoinetta, a plumber working in the backyard uncovered the remains and called police. Moses and six others are now facing charges.  Moses is facing the same sentence he imposed on little Jadon and ordered carried out on Antoinetta.

This case has it all.  Religion, cults, polygamy, child murder, a second murder, the death penalty, bodies wrapped in plastic bags.  And dare I say it?  Bodies discovered by some poor working man who will be called into court several years from now and questioned about his find.  Let’s just hope that no one accuses him of wanting fifteen minutes of fame and a big fat reward.

A lot of us are still smarting over what went on in the Casey Anthony trial.  Not just the verdict, but the multiple lives that were destroyed in the defense’s attempts to get the jury to blame anyone but Casey. Their blatant disregard for the truth and the lies they told the jury in opening statements.

As we watch the Jadon Higganbothan and Antoinetta McKay case proceed, I hope and pray that we don’t see the same shenanigans pulled in Durham that we did in Orlando.

Tweet

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Katherine Scardino

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough burden for the State to meet. The article written by Andrea Campbell and published on Women in Crime last Friday, which discussed the many different types of evidence that may be presented in a criminal trial in the United States, within the context of the Casey Anthony trial. The State may obtain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the defendant, but is not tangible evidence to connect the defendant directly. In other words, there are no crime scene fingerprints, DNA, eyewitnesses to the crime, etc... pointing directly to the accused as the culprit. The jury may render a verdict of guilty based solely on such circumstantial evidence if the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence is credible and proven. But, I do not want to write another Casey Anthony article. Let’s look at evidence another way.

I wrote an article a few weeks ago about the recent flurry of powerful men who had been accused of, to say the least, low morals - or as I wrote - acting like pigs. Along with others, I mentioned Dominique Strauss-Kahn and even violated my own rule by lumping him in with those other men, mainly politicians, who seemed to have a problem keeping their pants zipped. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a little different in that he was actually accused of committing a sexual assault against a maid in his hotel. His position rose to a higher level of accountability and a higher level of loss. He was not looking at an angry, vengeful divorce but the possible loss of his freedom and certainly his reputation and stature in the world.

I think the circumstances surrounding Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest and subsequent public disclosure in shackles are an embarrassment to the United States. We pride ourselves on the basic tenet that here, in the good old USA, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. You hear this constantly. Is that really true? I can answer that as a resounding “No." I can stand in front of a jury and state that each juror must believe that the accused person, standing before you prior to the jury hearing all of the evidence, is an innocent person. But, the mere fact that there is a person accused of misconduct standing in the courtroom around a counsel table with prosecutors, a court reporter, a judge and now a jury, is a weight that bears on the side of the prosecutor. The accused should not be judged in the news media like Mr. Strauss-Kahn was. We should never have arrested him without having done the smallest bit of investigation to at least make the evidence appear credible. 

In Federal court, the general rule is that when a Federal Grand Jury indicts a citizen of the United States, the US Attorney’s office has already conducted an investigation sufficient to believe that the accused is actually guilty. Don’t get me wrong - that does not mean that he is truly guilty, but it should mean that the US Attorney has enough evidence to get in front of a trial jury. 

The New York prosecutor jumped the gun on Mr. Strauss- Khan. The media reported that he was hoping to run for Mayor of New York and wanted the publicity. I do not profess to know his reasons with certainty. My complaint with the manner of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest is that there appears to have been zero work done on the credibility of the State’s evidence prior to his arrest. If the district attorney had done a small amount of investigation, he would have uncovered what he now is stating publicly - that the alleged victim is not a credible person. That does not mean the act did not occur. It simply means that he cannot take his case to a jury because he does not have the right kind of evidence that he can support.

So, what will happen now? The district court judge released Mr. Strauss-Kahn from house arrest. I do not know what other bail restrictions were lowered for him, but the dismissal from the prosecution should be coming soon. Where does that leave the United States? How about red-faced?

Is this a lesson for those of us who appeared so eager to accept the maid’s story as credible? It is easy to jump immediately to a conviction in cases of sexual assault. After all, why would a woman lie about that? In this case it could be money, publicity, attention, a twisted sense of need, or a combination of all of those things. If, in fact, a dismissal of all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn occurs, as seems likely, we owe this man an apology.

Which brings me back, briefly, to Casey Anthony and the burden of proof. In cases where the State is trying to terminate a parent’s parental rights - the most serious case in the world of Family Law - the burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence.” That evidence is weighed by the jury and the side who has the greater weight of evidence wins. That is a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a phrase that is not defined in our Penal Code. It is not the CSI phrase that is used in error - “without a shadow of doubt." Each juror must look at the evidence and form his or her own opinion whether the evidence reaches the highest burden of proof in our country, that of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my opinion that a capital murder trial where death is an option should not be decided on evidence that is loose or circumstantial. Apparently, the Casey Anthony jury agreed.

So, those of you who are amazed at the verdict, think again. The State decided to seek the death penalty against a woman without having evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, and these twelve individuals analyzed this evidence carefully and all twelve, unanimously, agreed that the proper verdict was not guilty. That does not mean she is innocent. It means the State could not give them enough evidence with which to convict, evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, which was their accepted burden. The jury did what they all believed was right.

Let’s put Mr. Strauss-Kahn and Ms. Anthony together. Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s case should have been investigated enough for the prosecutor to see whether he had sufficient evidence that could rise to that level of proof. The New York prosecutor has publicly admitted he has a problem with his evidence. The prosecutors in the Casey Anthony trial looked at their circumstantial case and believed that they could convince a jury that their evidence did rise to that level of proof. They just made a serious mistake because they underestimated the citizens who they helped choose to render a verdict.

photo credits: Parti socialiste, billaday

Tweet

WCI Contributors Make Their Predictions on the Casey Anthony Trial

*Blogger went offline Wednesday and apparently took our last two posts with it. They have fixed their technical difficulties and we have reposted today's blog. We apologize for any inconvenience. 

With the start of the Casey Anthony trial this week, in the death of her daughter Caylee, we’ve devoted several posts to the outcome of the trial. But none of these have the predictions of the “experts” here at Women in Crime Ink! At the end of the trial, we’ll see which one of our contributors hit the mark. Place your bets ladies: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty?"

Holly Hughes: “Casey is going down. She will be found guilty but will not receive the death penalty. The physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence and her own inexplicable behavior will be too much for a jury to ignore. However, the jury will want to parcel out the blame under the old adage, 'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.' They won't put her to death.” 

Dr. Gina Simmons: “A jury will likely find Casey Anthony guilty because evidence of her pattern of deception and callousness seems irrefutable. Juries don't like callous liars. Since only one tenth of one percent of female murderers were death sentenced, it's likely she'll get a far more lenient sentence than a man who committed the same crime.” 

Diane Fanning: “Casey Anthony’s trail of lies will lead the jurors straight to a verdict of guilty. There is probably a small chance of a hung jury, but I think Casey’s continuous prevarication and her disinterest in the whereabouts of her missing child will not allow any panel of twelve to acquit her of the charges. Then, at last, there will be justice for little Caylee." (Diane's book, Mommy's Little Girl, was the first to be released and takes an in-depth look into this fascinating but tragic case.)

Dr. Michelle Golland: "Casey Anthony will be found guilty because she did it. I would like to see George Anthony reveal what I believe he knows about what happened to Caylee. He should clean his conscience, already. Cindy knows her daughter played a role in her granddaughter’s death, but due to her narcissism, will never expose herself." 

Donna Pendergast: “The jury will come back 'Guilty' on all counts but will not render the death penalty. The circumstantial evidence of guilt is overwhelming which will result in a conviction despite the fact that jurors will not want to believe that a young mother could do this to her child. The jury will mitigate their doubts by not rendering a death penalty verdict during the penalty phase. We are all in for some high drama; hang on to your seat.” 

Cathy Scott: “My prediction is that the jury throws the book at Casey with a guilty verdict. While it's a circumstantial case, that circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points a finger directly at Casey, right down to the same duct tape on little Caylee's mouth that was found at the Anthony family's home, to the death odor discovered in the trunk of Casey's car. They're tough visions to shake.” 

Robin Sax: “The amount of evidence in this case is overwhelming, circumstantial or not. I mean, you don't get cases with as much 'stuff' as this one. But like most pretty girls, and since it gives the jury an out, I say no death penalty.” 

Anne Bremner: “I wouldn't want to be an attorney for the already damned. But I think there may be a creative defense about which we will hear in the first minute of the defense opening statement. Stay tuned. And fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be a bumpy, interesting and ultimately tragic--guilty verdict or not--ride.” 

Pat Brown: “Guilty, but I think they won’t give her the death penalty because of her psychological problems and all that 'physical and sex abuse' she suffered in her family. If nothing else, they will think they can’t blame her entirely for her viciousness because 'Cindy AKA The Devil made her do it.' ” 

Stacy Dittrich: “I’m giving it a 60/40 in favor of a guilty verdict. The 40 percent is reserved that 'one' juror who may or may not hold out for a myriad of reasons. It is always a possibility. Definitely no death penalty.”

What is your prediction? Let us know.

Tweet

Is 'Adequate and Competent' Enough?

by Diane Fanning 

Down in Orlando, the Casey Anthony pre-trial hearings are stirring up serious legal questions concerning an indigent defendant’s right to qualified defense counsel. Unfortunately, up until now, this issue has been obscured by the circus-like atmosphere that has surrounded this case since Cindy Anthony called 9-1-1.

Many people are complaining that someone like Casey Anthony does not deserve for a single penny of taxpayer money to be spent paying her high priced attorneys. Part of the reason for this outcry is the long amount of time that has transpired since Caylee Anthony disappeared. When jury selection begins, it will be nearly 35 months since Caylee was last seen alive.

The other part of the objection is the apparent guilt of Casey Anthony. I’ll admit that I found the forensic data and the interviews with Casey to be compelling evidence of her involvement in the death of her daughter. Nonetheless, our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence. Everyone is entitled to have the determination of guilt be made in a court of law. To strip people like Casey of that right is to imperil all of our civil liberties.

The third aspect of the response is an emotional one. On one side of the equation, we have a self-centered, selfish, spoiled young woman. On the other side, an adorable, innocent child, not quite three years old. Your heart must side with Caylee. To make matters worse, the accused murderer has been proven to be a liar, even by her own admission. She has been proven to be a thief by stealing from her own grandmother. She has been proven to care little for her own daughter, as shown by the 30 fun-filled days she spent before being forced to admit that Caylee was missing. It's hard not to despise Casey and nearly impossible to give her the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when it comes to the legal presumption of innocence, it is her right. And, it is in our best interests to ensure that right is not violated.

The issue is much larger and more important than Casey Anthony. It goes to the basic premise of equality under the law. Eighty per cent of the experts in the field of capital case law agree than there is bias in the administration of the death penalty based on social class. In other words, the more money you have to spend on your defense team, the less likely you are to receive the death penalty. That very concept thwarts our principle of equality under the law.

Take the case of Robert Durst. He decapitated his neighbor and claimed self-defense. He had millions at his disposal to buy the best defense team available. In the end, he walked away from the courtroom after the jury bought into the arguments of his attorney. Do you really think the outcome would have been the same if the story had involved a poor man who had no choice but to rely on the adequate and competent counsel of a court-appointed attorney? I certainly don't.

How can we uphold our principles that ensure justice is blind and we are all equal in the eyes of the law?

Ideally, every guilty person would honestly acknowledge their responsibility when charged with a crime, leaving only the decision of how much weight to give to mitigating circumstances when assessing a sentence. But it is not, and never will be, an ideal world. Someone who is willing to take another's life is not going to balk at lying to attempt to save his skin.

Casey Anthony is certainly a case in point. To date, her defense has cost approximately $300,000. Since she was ruled to be indigent in March of this year, the defense has received nearly $40,000 in taxpayer funding, although her legal team has requested far more than that.

Last week, Jose Baez and his team asked for more money for their private investigator (300 additional hours at $40 per hour). Judge Blevin Perry granted only one-fifth of that amount. Perry would not allow any travel expense reimbursement for the new death penalty expert. When the defense asked for $7,500 for a psychological expert, he only granted $2,500. The judge made his position clear: The law requires an adequate defense, not the best defense possible. "I'm not going to write an open check."

WKMG's Tony Pipitone summed up the day in the courtroom: "The law says indigent defendants are entitled to a defense that's competent. But they are not entitled to an O.J. defense unless they can pay for it themselves."

But is that right? Should people like O.J. Simpson be entitled to a better defense than you or I merely because they can afford it? Is that what justice is all about--the size of your wallet

Maybe it's time to think about trial financial reform. The scales should be balanced. Nonetheless, it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to shoulder the additional burden of the best defense for the indigent. Maybe we should consider restricting the expenditures of wealthy defendants.

I don't know if that's the answer or if it is even a possibility, but equality under the law requires consideration for all solutions that might lead to the elimination of bias in the courtroom.

Diane Fanning is the author of Mommy's Little Girl: Casey Anthony and Her Daughter Caylee's Tragic Fate.  When the Casey Anthony trial begins next year, you'll find daily updates of the case on Diane Fanning's blog, Writing is a Crime.

Tweet

Does Teresa Lewis Deserve to Die?

FINAL UPDATE:  Teresa Lewis received an injection of lethal chemicals last night at 9 eastern in the Greenville Correctional Center in Jarrat, Virginia.  She was prounounced dead at 9:13 pm. (September 24) 

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the final appeal made on behalf of Teresa Lewis today (Sept. 22).

by Diane Fanning

On Thursday, the State of Virginia plans to execute a woman for the first time in 98 years. In 2002, Teresa Lewis, who was married and living near Danville, Virginia, in rural Pittsylvania County, had an affair with Matthew Shallenberger. On the night of October 30, Teresa intentionally left a door unlocked when she got into bed with her husband.

Shallenberger and his partner-in-crime Rodney Fuller used that door to enter the trailer, where Teresa lived with her 51-year-old husband Julian and 25-year-old stepson Charles. Shallenberger went to one end of the home and shot the sleeping Julian in the back. At the other end of the trailer, Fuller killed Charles. The motive was $350,000 in insurance money.

After the shooting, Teresa took money from her dying husband's wallet and waited 45 minutes to call police. Despite the delay, Julian was still alive when the deputies arrived and told them, "My wife knows who done this to me." He died moments later.

Shooting men in their sleep is a horrible act. Nonetheless, I am disturbed by the imminent execution of Teresa Lewis. I am not bothered because she's female. After all, although 10 to 12 percent of all homicides are committed by women, they comprise just 2 percent of the population on death row. I believe strongly in equity in the justice system. Justice demands that there should be no gender bias just as there should be no racial bias.

There are three different issues that do trouble me:

1. Teresa Lewis didn't fight the charges; she pleaded guilty before the judge.

It seems illogical to me that someone who admitted guilt would be given a death sentence. It seems the state would want to encourage perpetrators to acknowledge their responsibility. It saves taxpayers money, it saves victims' family members from the anguish of a trial, and it settles the issue in a speedier manner. But when someone does plead guilty and still gets the maximum penalty, it discourages every other killer from making an honest plea.

2. Teresa Lewis did not pull the trigger

Fuller appeared first before the judge. He pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against his two co-conspirators. He was given a life sentence. Shallenberger decided to go to trial, but in the middle of the proceedings, he changed his plea to guilty. The same judge said that it wouldn't be fair to give Shallenberger a death sentence when the other killer received life. He gave the second trigger-man the same sentence as the first.

The same judge decided the fate of Teresa Lewis. She pleaded guilty, taking her chances with the judge. Unlike the two men, she had no criminal record, no history of violence and had cooperated with authorities. Nonetheless, the judge sent her to death row saying that she was more culpable because she was the mastermind.

But was she? Before committing suicide, Shallenberger cast doubt on her dominant role in the crime. In an editorial in the Washington Post, author John Grisham wrote that in the sworn affidavit from a private investigator, "Shallenberger described Lewis as not very bright and as someone who could easily be duped into a scheme to kill her husband and stepson for money. According to the investigator, Shallenberger said, 'From the moment I met her, I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated. From the moment I met her I had a plan for how I could use her to get some money.'"

Shallenberger wanted cash to set up a drug distribution ring and become an accomplished hitman. In a 2003 letter, he wrote: "I met Teresa in a Walmart in Danville, Virginia. From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated. Killing Julian and Charles Lewis was entirely my idea. I needed money and Teresa was an easy target."

In a 2004 affidavit, Fuller corroborated that statement: "As between Mrs. Lewis and Shallenberger, Shallenberger was definitely the one in charge of things, not Mrs. Lewis."

3. Teresa Lewis is borderline for mental retardation

Her IQ, tested once at 73 and a second time of 70, places her just above the threshold where the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision would have prohibited her execution. Nonetheless, it is still low enough to indicate that she did not have the mental capacity to plan and execute the scheme. "She does not have the basic skills necessary to organize and lead a conspiracy to commit murder for hire," Grisham wrote.

In addition to her intellectual limitations, three different psychology experts have declared Lewis suffers from "dependent personality disorder," making it difficult for her to carry out even the simplest daily tasks without help. On top of that, Grisham added, a long list of physical ailments, enabled her to develop "an addiction to pain medications and this adversely affected her judgment."

No one is advocating for Teresa's release for prison. They are calling for the commutation of her sentence from death to life. In addition to John Grisham, her clemency plea is supported by Amnesty International, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights and a number of Christian groups, including the one led by long-time prison chaplain the Reverend Lynn Litchfield.

Governor Bob McDonnell recently refused to give Teresa a stay of execution. All that stands between her and death is a last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court.

Tweet