Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 14, 2006 11:45:10 GMT -5
Federal court overturns Arizona man's death sentence
In Phoenix, a federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned the death
sentence of a man who had asked to end his appeals so he could be
executed.
Robert Charles Comer, 49, was convicted of killing a fellow Apache Lake
camper during a 1987 crime spree where he also raped another camper after
tying up her boyfriend.
Comer asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to overturn
a lower court ruling denying his appeal, then changed his mind in 2000 and
asked the court to end all appeals and allow him to proceed to execution.
The appeals court ruling said Comer was competent to waive his appeals.
But the majority on the 3-judge panel held that the court would be remiss
in its duty if it did not provide an appellate review of the claims that
lower courts had rejected.
In that review, the united panel upheld his conviction, rejecting
arguments that his trial was flawed because of several constitutional
errors. But a divided majority found that Comer's sentencing violated his
due process rights because he was hauled before the sentencing judge in a
wheelchair "nearly naked, bleeding, shackled, and exhausted."
His condition "diminished his ability to communicate with his counsel" and
likely influenced the judge who had to decide if he received the death
sentence, Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson wrote in the majority opinion.
Comer's appearance "certainly increased the perception of his
dangerousness" and could have swayed the judge, the ruling states. "It is
hard to believe that any human being, no matter how well trained to be
impartial, would be entirely unaffected by the dehumanizing impact of
Comer's appearance in the courtroom."
Taken together, the circumstances of the sentencing were so inherently
prejudicial that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process,
the court ruled.
Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer strongly dissented with the decision to
address the merits of the appeal Comer was trying to halt, calling the
majority decision a "raw imposition of power" at odds with U.S. Supreme
Court rulings.
The Arizona Attorney General's office said it planned to seek a review
before the nation's highest court.
"We agree with the dissent," said Kent Cattani, chief counsel for the
attorney general's capital litigation section. "The question before the
court was whether Comer was competent to withdraw his appeal, and if the
answer to that question is yes, and all three justices agree that it was,
that should end the case."
Comer waived his right to be present during the seven days of testimony in
his 1988 trial. He was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery
for the shooting death of Larry Pritchard, and of 3 counts of sexual
assault, armed robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault for the attacks
on the woman and her boyfriend.
His girlfriend, Juneva Willis, 47, was with him at the time of the crimes
and was allowed to plead guilty to kidnapping in exchange for agreeing to
testify against Comer. She served nearly 6 years in prison before her
release in March 1994, according to Arizona Department of Corrections
records. Cattani said it was Comer's own actions that led to the
conditions the court cited.
"Comer was resisting, he didn't want to go to sentencing," Cattani said.
"He was the one responsible for his appearance there in front of the
judge."
Cattani said if the appeal to the Supreme Court fails, his office will
work with Maricopa County prosecutors to pursue a resentencing hearing.
Comer's appellate attorney, Michael Kimerer of Phoenix, called the court's
decision "unusual" and easy to second guess. He also said Comer himself
would be unhappy with the ruling.
"Certainly when you look at that that's some creative work by the court,
but they base it on precedent," Kimerer said. "They say certainly the
defendant shouldn't have control over his life like that if his due
process has been violated."
(source: Associated Press)
In Phoenix, a federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned the death
sentence of a man who had asked to end his appeals so he could be
executed.
Robert Charles Comer, 49, was convicted of killing a fellow Apache Lake
camper during a 1987 crime spree where he also raped another camper after
tying up her boyfriend.
Comer asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to overturn
a lower court ruling denying his appeal, then changed his mind in 2000 and
asked the court to end all appeals and allow him to proceed to execution.
The appeals court ruling said Comer was competent to waive his appeals.
But the majority on the 3-judge panel held that the court would be remiss
in its duty if it did not provide an appellate review of the claims that
lower courts had rejected.
In that review, the united panel upheld his conviction, rejecting
arguments that his trial was flawed because of several constitutional
errors. But a divided majority found that Comer's sentencing violated his
due process rights because he was hauled before the sentencing judge in a
wheelchair "nearly naked, bleeding, shackled, and exhausted."
His condition "diminished his ability to communicate with his counsel" and
likely influenced the judge who had to decide if he received the death
sentence, Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson wrote in the majority opinion.
Comer's appearance "certainly increased the perception of his
dangerousness" and could have swayed the judge, the ruling states. "It is
hard to believe that any human being, no matter how well trained to be
impartial, would be entirely unaffected by the dehumanizing impact of
Comer's appearance in the courtroom."
Taken together, the circumstances of the sentencing were so inherently
prejudicial that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process,
the court ruled.
Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer strongly dissented with the decision to
address the merits of the appeal Comer was trying to halt, calling the
majority decision a "raw imposition of power" at odds with U.S. Supreme
Court rulings.
The Arizona Attorney General's office said it planned to seek a review
before the nation's highest court.
"We agree with the dissent," said Kent Cattani, chief counsel for the
attorney general's capital litigation section. "The question before the
court was whether Comer was competent to withdraw his appeal, and if the
answer to that question is yes, and all three justices agree that it was,
that should end the case."
Comer waived his right to be present during the seven days of testimony in
his 1988 trial. He was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery
for the shooting death of Larry Pritchard, and of 3 counts of sexual
assault, armed robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault for the attacks
on the woman and her boyfriend.
His girlfriend, Juneva Willis, 47, was with him at the time of the crimes
and was allowed to plead guilty to kidnapping in exchange for agreeing to
testify against Comer. She served nearly 6 years in prison before her
release in March 1994, according to Arizona Department of Corrections
records. Cattani said it was Comer's own actions that led to the
conditions the court cited.
"Comer was resisting, he didn't want to go to sentencing," Cattani said.
"He was the one responsible for his appearance there in front of the
judge."
Cattani said if the appeal to the Supreme Court fails, his office will
work with Maricopa County prosecutors to pursue a resentencing hearing.
Comer's appellate attorney, Michael Kimerer of Phoenix, called the court's
decision "unusual" and easy to second guess. He also said Comer himself
would be unhappy with the ruling.
"Certainly when you look at that that's some creative work by the court,
but they base it on precedent," Kimerer said. "They say certainly the
defendant shouldn't have control over his life like that if his due
process has been violated."
(source: Associated Press)