Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 12, 2006 23:29:48 GMT -5
Serial killer asks Supreme Court to overturn death sentence
A confessed serial killer on Tuesday asked the Illinois Supreme Court to
throw out his death sentence because he should have been allowed to plead
guilty but mentally ill to killing a 21-year-old Indiana woman.
Andrew Urdiales, 42, was convicted and sentenced to die in May 2004 for
the 1996 shooting and stabbing of Cassandra Corum of Hammond, Ind. Her
body was found in the Vermilion River about 100 miles southwest of
Chicago.
Urdiales also has confessed to killing 7 other women in Illinois and
California between 1988 and 1996. He was sentenced to die for killing 2
Chicago-area women, but that sentence was commuted when former Gov. George
Ryan cleared Illinois' death row in 2003.
Urdiales' lawyer argued that Livingston County Circuit Judge Harold
Frobish wrongly rejected the claim that Urdiales committed the crime but
should be given a break because he suffers from a variety of mental
illnesses, including panic, obsessive-compulsive and bipolar disorders.
State appellate defender Duane Schuster said the judge essentially ignored
significant testimony from 3 medical experts that Urdiales' mental
illnesses impaired his judgment at the time of the offense.
Schuster asked the court to clarify what standard judges should use to
determine whether there's a factual basis to find defendants such as
Urdiales guilty but mentally ill.
"Certainly there is a gap in the law here, and that's what makes this case
unique, that's what makes this case novel," Schuster said.
Urdiales originally pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but that was
rejected by the trial court. He then attempted to change to guilty but
mentally ill -- essentially a guilty plea accompanied by a mitigating
factor that might have brought him a lighter sentence.
An attorney for the state argued that the judge correctly sided with a
state medical expert who determined Urdiales had no psychosis or mental
illness that could excuse responsibility for his actions.
Assistant attorney general Michael Glick said Urdiales clearly planned and
tried to cover up the crime, and the state's case is strong.
"The aggravating evidence here is overwhelming, and this court should have
no problem affirming his conviction and death sentence," Glick said.
Several justices quizzed Schuster about whether the judge should have
sided with Urdiales.
"Does the judge have the authority to accept some evidence and reject
other evidence?" Justice Thomas Fitzgerald asked Schuster. "I suppose
that's why we're here."
The 2 sides also argued over whether Urdiales should have been shackled to
the defense table during the trial.
Glick said it was simply a standard security practice in Livingston County
and the jury was not able to see the shackles. Schuster said it violated
Urdiales' constitutional rights and tainted the proceedings.
The court set no timetable for ruling on the case.
(source: Associated Press)
A confessed serial killer on Tuesday asked the Illinois Supreme Court to
throw out his death sentence because he should have been allowed to plead
guilty but mentally ill to killing a 21-year-old Indiana woman.
Andrew Urdiales, 42, was convicted and sentenced to die in May 2004 for
the 1996 shooting and stabbing of Cassandra Corum of Hammond, Ind. Her
body was found in the Vermilion River about 100 miles southwest of
Chicago.
Urdiales also has confessed to killing 7 other women in Illinois and
California between 1988 and 1996. He was sentenced to die for killing 2
Chicago-area women, but that sentence was commuted when former Gov. George
Ryan cleared Illinois' death row in 2003.
Urdiales' lawyer argued that Livingston County Circuit Judge Harold
Frobish wrongly rejected the claim that Urdiales committed the crime but
should be given a break because he suffers from a variety of mental
illnesses, including panic, obsessive-compulsive and bipolar disorders.
State appellate defender Duane Schuster said the judge essentially ignored
significant testimony from 3 medical experts that Urdiales' mental
illnesses impaired his judgment at the time of the offense.
Schuster asked the court to clarify what standard judges should use to
determine whether there's a factual basis to find defendants such as
Urdiales guilty but mentally ill.
"Certainly there is a gap in the law here, and that's what makes this case
unique, that's what makes this case novel," Schuster said.
Urdiales originally pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but that was
rejected by the trial court. He then attempted to change to guilty but
mentally ill -- essentially a guilty plea accompanied by a mitigating
factor that might have brought him a lighter sentence.
An attorney for the state argued that the judge correctly sided with a
state medical expert who determined Urdiales had no psychosis or mental
illness that could excuse responsibility for his actions.
Assistant attorney general Michael Glick said Urdiales clearly planned and
tried to cover up the crime, and the state's case is strong.
"The aggravating evidence here is overwhelming, and this court should have
no problem affirming his conviction and death sentence," Glick said.
Several justices quizzed Schuster about whether the judge should have
sided with Urdiales.
"Does the judge have the authority to accept some evidence and reject
other evidence?" Justice Thomas Fitzgerald asked Schuster. "I suppose
that's why we're here."
The 2 sides also argued over whether Urdiales should have been shackled to
the defense table during the trial.
Glick said it was simply a standard security practice in Livingston County
and the jury was not able to see the shackles. Schuster said it violated
Urdiales' constitutional rights and tainted the proceedings.
The court set no timetable for ruling on the case.
(source: Associated Press)