August 24, 2015
NBC News is reporting that Judge Samour, the judge who presided over the James Holmes murder trial (AKA: the Aurora theater shootings) defended the outcome (life without parole) against criticism by the mother of one of the shooting victims. She said the result showed more concern for Holmes than his victims. He said,
“You can’t claim there was no justice because it wasn’t the outcome you expected,” Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. said in an unusual speech from the bench during Holmes’ formal sentencing hearing for the 2012 attack.
Samour said the jury was fair and impartial and that he tried his utmost to be the same.
“And that’s how you know it was justice,” he said.
Holmes killed twelve and wounded 70 people. He was schizophrenic and delusional when he committed the crimes. Experts testified that he would not have committed the crimes if he were not mentally ill.
I agree with Judge Samour.
Prior to trial, the defense offered to plead guilty to a life-without-parole sentence, but the prosecutor rejected the offer. I have have criticized that decision harshly as a catastrophic waste of time and money because juries are reluctant to sentence the mentally ill to death. The result was predictable. I feel bad for the victims and their families, but this trial and its attendant emotional roller coaster did not need to happen.
August 9, 2015
In light of the life-without-parole sentences imposed on Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Jared Loughner (who shot and killed Congresswoman Gabriele Giffords and a federal judge) and James Eagan Holmes (who shot and killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado), that “mark the progress of a maturing society,” I believe our society’s “evolving standards of decency” have reached a point where Congress and our state legislatures should pass legislation that prohibits executing the mentally ill for murders they committed. At long last, have we not reached the point where reasonable and thoughtful people can conclude that executing the mentally ill violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote,
This Court has had little occasion to give precise content to the Eighth Amendment, and, in an enlightened democracy such as ours, this is not surprising. But when the Court was confronted with a punishment of 12 years in irons at hard and painful labor imposed for the crime of falsifying public records, it did not hesitate to declare that the penalty was cruel in its excessiveness and unusual in its character. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349. The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
Each of these men committed atrocious and heinous multiple murders. Each of them was schizophrenic and delusional when they committed the murders. When a person kills another human being while gripped by delusions caused by a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, it makes no sense to hold that person accountable for what he did by executing him. Indeed, such an execution serves only a desire for vengeance, which is not a legitimate societal interest. Moreover, since they have lost the capacity to reason through no fault of their own, it certainly does not deter other mentally ill people from killing.
I previously warned that the James Holmes death penalty trial is a colossal waste of time and money. Let us join together and vow to never again make this mistake.
August 8, 2015
Twelve jurors failed to agree on a death sentence for Colorado theatre shooter James Holmes, prompting shocked sobs from victims, police officers and his own mother. Holmes will instead spend the rest of his life in prison for fatally shooting 12 people.
The nine women and three men said they could not reach a unanimous verdict on each murder count. That automatically eliminates the death penalty for Holmes, who blamed the killings on mental illness.
One juror told reporters outside court that there was a single juror who refused to give Holmes the death penalty and two others who were wavering. The key issue was Holmes’ mental illness.
“All the jurors feel so much empathy for the victims. It’s a tragedy,” the juror said, refusing to give her name. “It’s a devastating result no matter what. I am deeply, deeply sorry — that isn’t even the word.”
The verdict was a surprise because a week ago (before the victim impact testimony) the jury decided that the mitigation evidence did not outweigh the aggravation evidence. I was surprised since that is the legal test for deciding whether to impose the death penalty or life without parole. I suspect the change might be the due to the difference in believing you can kill someone versus actually doing it. Someone on that jury could not pull the proverbial trigger.
A month ago, I predicted this result when I wrote, James Holmes death penalty trial is a colossal waste of time and money.
The prosecution is seeking the death penalty even though there is no question that Holmes was mentally ill but legally sane at the time of the shootings — one psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from schizotypal disorder while a second psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from shizoaffective disorder — and he offered to plead guilty to a life-without-parole sentence. After the prosecution rejected the defense offer, Holmes changed his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity.
We who have experience representing clients in death penalty cases* refer to the guilt phase in a slam dunk case like this as a slow-motion guilty plea. That is, when we lack a defense, instead of pleading guilty, we use the guilt phase to introduce evidence that mitigates the seriousness of the offense. Holmes’s insanity defense is doomed because he admitted to police that he knew killing was wrong. But there is no dispute that he was mentally ill. While not a defense, mental illness is a powerful mitigating factor and, as I’ve said previously, I think the jury will likely vote for a life-without-parole sentence after the penalty phase for the simple reason that killing somebody who was mentally ill through no fault of their own is morally and ethically repugnant to most people.
I’ve said this before and I will say it again, this trial has been a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money.
*I was a death penalty lawyer until I retired in 2005.