Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 4, 2006 11:57:29 GMT -5
Death penalty lawyers: Prosecutors acted 'in bad faith'
Days before a Hartford Superior Court jury is to begin hearing evidence in
the penalty phase of convicted double murderer Jessie A. Campbell III, his
public defenders filed a motion claiming prosecutors acted in "bad faith"
by changing the terms of a plea deal that would have spared Campbell the
death penalty.
Public defenders Ronald Gold and David G.E. Smith of the Capital Defense
Unit filed the blockbuster, seven-page motion in court Friday asking the
judge in the penalty phase to impose a life sentence on Campbell.
Campbell, 26, was convicted by a jury in May 2004 of capital felony for
shooting to death LaTaysha Logan, 20, and Manchester High School graduate
Desiree Privette, 18. Campbell also shot in the head Privette's aunt,
Carolyn Privette; she survived the August 2000 rampage and testified
against him.
Under the law, the penalty for capital felony is execution or life in
prison without release.
But the jury that convicted Campbell was unable to agree on the
appropriate penalty, and Judge Edward J. Mullarkey ultimately ordered a
new penalty hearing.
Following 2 years of delays, Gold, Smith, and prosecutors Vicki Melchiorre
and Dennis O'Connor earlier this summer picked 12 jurors and 4 alternates
to hear the new penalty phase.
2 jurors have since been excused, but the case is set to begin with the
state's evidence on Wednesday morning - more than 6 years after the
murders.
It was not immediately clear if the defense motion will trigger any
additional delays; no hearing date has been set.
Filed late Friday afternoon, the motion claims that Melchiorre and
O'Connor agreed to a plea deal on or about Aug. 10 that called for
Campbell to apologize to the victims' families and accept responsibility
for his actions.
In exchange for his admissions, Gold and Smith say in their motion,
Campbell would have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. He
also would have retained his right to appeal his convictions - a position
the defense lawyers said O'Connor opposed, but that Melchiorre, as "lead
counsel" for the state, proffered to them in April and that they in turn
spelled out to Campbell.
Despite O'Connor's reservations, the public defenders say, "The conditions
for disposition of the case were confirmed - that the defendant would not
have to waive his appellate rights and would only have to apologize to the
victims' families and accept responsibility for his actions."
At some point on Aug. 10, the motion says, Gold and Smith said Campbell
told them he'd be willing to apologize and accept responsibility for his
actions, but only "off the record."
There is nothing in the motion indicating that any deal between Campbell
and the state was formally inked. However, the motion says prosecutors
wouldn't budge on one issue: "The state's attorneys indicated that the
apology would have to take place on the record."
Seven days after that discussion, on Aug. 17, the defense lawyers say
Melchiorre spoke to Gold and told him that she'd spoken to her boss,
Hartford State's Attorney James E. Thomas.
Thomas "told her that he would not allow the disposition unless the
defendant waived his appellate rights," the motion says.
And in what will likely be one of the most contested lines in the motion,
Gold and Smith say, "Ms. Melchiorre told Mr. Smith that she had not
believed that the defendant would agree to the disposition, so she had not
previously discussed the issue with Mr. Thomas."
On Aug. 21, Gold and Smith say, Gold told the prosecutors that Campbell
agreed to "accept responsibility and apologize and would do so on the
record."
But, "The state's attorneys are now saying that they also require a waiver
of appellate rights in order to have an agreement."
The "change of the proposed disposition goes against fundamental fairness
because defense counsel negotiated in good faith with the lead prosecutor,
and reasonably relied on the fact that she had the authority to make the
offer she made," the motion says.
"To ensure fairness in plea negotiations, 'the prosecutors office is a
single unit; the left hand is deemed to know what the right hand is
doing,'" Gold and Smith wrote, citing a 1974 State Supreme Court case.
"Good faith plea bargaining is the belief that the settlement will be
negotiated according to principles of fundamental fairness," they wrote.
"When the state's attorneys fail to adhere to their offer that has been
carefully negotiated with the defense counsel over a significant period of
time, and change the deal at the last minute, they undermine the good
faith foundation of plea bargaining."
The latest motion filed by the defense shares some similarities with one
filed in June in which they sought to have Mullarkey impose a life
sentence on Campbell, claiming the death penalty is applied in an
"arbitrary and capricious manner."
To support that motion, Gold and Smith subpoenaed the state's 13 top
prosecutors - over the objection of the state - to testify how their
offices decide to seek the death penalty. However, the subpoenas were,
essentially, stayed pending the outcome of this jury's decision.
If jurors return with a death penalty, Mullarkey would hear that argument.
But if the panel votes for a life sentence, the motion becomes moot.
With the presentation of evidence set to begin Wednesday, Mullarkey and
the lawyers are scheduled to meet in court on Tuesday for "housekeeping"
issues such as the scheduling of witnesses.
Attempts to reach Melchiorre on Sunday were unsuccessful.
(source for both: Journal Inquirer)
Days before a Hartford Superior Court jury is to begin hearing evidence in
the penalty phase of convicted double murderer Jessie A. Campbell III, his
public defenders filed a motion claiming prosecutors acted in "bad faith"
by changing the terms of a plea deal that would have spared Campbell the
death penalty.
Public defenders Ronald Gold and David G.E. Smith of the Capital Defense
Unit filed the blockbuster, seven-page motion in court Friday asking the
judge in the penalty phase to impose a life sentence on Campbell.
Campbell, 26, was convicted by a jury in May 2004 of capital felony for
shooting to death LaTaysha Logan, 20, and Manchester High School graduate
Desiree Privette, 18. Campbell also shot in the head Privette's aunt,
Carolyn Privette; she survived the August 2000 rampage and testified
against him.
Under the law, the penalty for capital felony is execution or life in
prison without release.
But the jury that convicted Campbell was unable to agree on the
appropriate penalty, and Judge Edward J. Mullarkey ultimately ordered a
new penalty hearing.
Following 2 years of delays, Gold, Smith, and prosecutors Vicki Melchiorre
and Dennis O'Connor earlier this summer picked 12 jurors and 4 alternates
to hear the new penalty phase.
2 jurors have since been excused, but the case is set to begin with the
state's evidence on Wednesday morning - more than 6 years after the
murders.
It was not immediately clear if the defense motion will trigger any
additional delays; no hearing date has been set.
Filed late Friday afternoon, the motion claims that Melchiorre and
O'Connor agreed to a plea deal on or about Aug. 10 that called for
Campbell to apologize to the victims' families and accept responsibility
for his actions.
In exchange for his admissions, Gold and Smith say in their motion,
Campbell would have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. He
also would have retained his right to appeal his convictions - a position
the defense lawyers said O'Connor opposed, but that Melchiorre, as "lead
counsel" for the state, proffered to them in April and that they in turn
spelled out to Campbell.
Despite O'Connor's reservations, the public defenders say, "The conditions
for disposition of the case were confirmed - that the defendant would not
have to waive his appellate rights and would only have to apologize to the
victims' families and accept responsibility for his actions."
At some point on Aug. 10, the motion says, Gold and Smith said Campbell
told them he'd be willing to apologize and accept responsibility for his
actions, but only "off the record."
There is nothing in the motion indicating that any deal between Campbell
and the state was formally inked. However, the motion says prosecutors
wouldn't budge on one issue: "The state's attorneys indicated that the
apology would have to take place on the record."
Seven days after that discussion, on Aug. 17, the defense lawyers say
Melchiorre spoke to Gold and told him that she'd spoken to her boss,
Hartford State's Attorney James E. Thomas.
Thomas "told her that he would not allow the disposition unless the
defendant waived his appellate rights," the motion says.
And in what will likely be one of the most contested lines in the motion,
Gold and Smith say, "Ms. Melchiorre told Mr. Smith that she had not
believed that the defendant would agree to the disposition, so she had not
previously discussed the issue with Mr. Thomas."
On Aug. 21, Gold and Smith say, Gold told the prosecutors that Campbell
agreed to "accept responsibility and apologize and would do so on the
record."
But, "The state's attorneys are now saying that they also require a waiver
of appellate rights in order to have an agreement."
The "change of the proposed disposition goes against fundamental fairness
because defense counsel negotiated in good faith with the lead prosecutor,
and reasonably relied on the fact that she had the authority to make the
offer she made," the motion says.
"To ensure fairness in plea negotiations, 'the prosecutors office is a
single unit; the left hand is deemed to know what the right hand is
doing,'" Gold and Smith wrote, citing a 1974 State Supreme Court case.
"Good faith plea bargaining is the belief that the settlement will be
negotiated according to principles of fundamental fairness," they wrote.
"When the state's attorneys fail to adhere to their offer that has been
carefully negotiated with the defense counsel over a significant period of
time, and change the deal at the last minute, they undermine the good
faith foundation of plea bargaining."
The latest motion filed by the defense shares some similarities with one
filed in June in which they sought to have Mullarkey impose a life
sentence on Campbell, claiming the death penalty is applied in an
"arbitrary and capricious manner."
To support that motion, Gold and Smith subpoenaed the state's 13 top
prosecutors - over the objection of the state - to testify how their
offices decide to seek the death penalty. However, the subpoenas were,
essentially, stayed pending the outcome of this jury's decision.
If jurors return with a death penalty, Mullarkey would hear that argument.
But if the panel votes for a life sentence, the motion becomes moot.
With the presentation of evidence set to begin Wednesday, Mullarkey and
the lawyers are scheduled to meet in court on Tuesday for "housekeeping"
issues such as the scheduling of witnesses.
Attempts to reach Melchiorre on Sunday were unsuccessful.
(source for both: Journal Inquirer)