Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 17, 2006 23:46:15 GMT -5
Triggerman rule debated: Its Elimination is Being Sought in Virginia
Death-Penalty Cases
A bill to eliminate Virginia's long-standing triggerman rule exposing more
capital-murder accomplices to the death penalty is under consideration.
The rule in many cases bars death sentences for capital-murder
participants who did not, literally, pull the trigger or otherwise
directly kill the victim or victims.
Proponents of the rule argue its elimination would open a whole new class
of less culpable offenders to capital-murder prosecution at great expense
to the state and resulting in few, if any, new death sentences.
Opponents say the rule can tie the hands of prosecutors when more than one
person is equally responsible for a capital murder and that the intent is
not to execute lookouts or others playing less significant roles in
capital murders.
The rule could have jeopardized death sentences won for the murder of the
Harvey family in Richmond or against John Allen Muhammad, one of the
Beltway Snipers, said state Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, who wants
the rule eliminated.
Gilbert said that if the rule were eliminated, prosecutors would still
have to prove an accomplice had the same "willful, deliberate,
premeditated intent to kill" as the triggerman.
David Bruck, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of
Law, said the rule is an essential safeguard. "Courts make mistakes
deciding what people did. But we make a lot more mistakes in deciding what
someone thought or intended," he said.
When life and death are at stake, said Bruck, director of the Virginia
Capital Case Clearinghouse, it is a bad idea to substitute a rule based on
finding facts with one that attempts to figure out what was in someone's
mind and heart. The Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse is a legal aid
clinic providing free services to defense attorneys who represent
capital-murder defendants in cases throughout Virginia.
Under current law, only the triggerman can be executed except in cases of
murder for hire or murder ordered by a drug dealer or terrorist.
In addition, the Virginia Su- preme Court has held that if more than one
person was an immediate perpetrator -- for instance, if one holds a victim
down while another strikes fatal blows with a rock then all such people
are eligible for the death penalty.
The justices also ruled that Muhammad's role as mastermind in the Beltway
snipings established he was an immediate perpetrator, even though Lee Boyd
Malvo was the triggerman.
Gilbert sponsored a bill in the last General Assembly session to eliminate
the triggerman rule, but it was referred to the Virginia State Crime
Commission for study. The commission discussed the matter at its meeting
last Tuesday.
Gilbert's concern is that when 2 or more people play key roles in a
capital murder, it is sometimes not possible to prove who pulled the
trigger, so no one gets the death penalty. He contends that without a
confession, the rule might have prevented a death sentence in the slaying
of the Harvey family in Richmond.
Only 4 of the 38 states with death-penalty laws have a triggerman rule. It
has been part of the state's death-penalty law since it was rewritten in
1977 to overcome U.S. Supreme Court objections that barred executions from
1972 until 1976.
Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert, who won the
death sentence against Muhammad, said the rule muddied the waters in the
case.
"If the law was to require the person to actually pull the trigger, so to
speak, before they could be guilty of capital murder, we would have had a
hard time prosecuting either one of those people because nobody actually
saw them do that, Ebert said.
"I think there are enough safeguards in capital punishment for the defense
without having that as a predicate."
State Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, a former police officer
and now chairman of the crime commission, expressed skepticism last
Tuesday about the need for eliminating the rule.
He said that prosecutors seem to be able to work around it, citing the
death sentences won in the Harvey and Muhammad cases. Indeed, Ricky Javon
Gray, who confessed to the Harvey murders, and Muhammad each got more than
one death sentence.
But Katherine Baldwin, a senior assistant Virginia attorney general, told
the commission: "There have been numerous examples of prosecutors not
being able to proceed with a capital case where they had equally culpable
[killers], but they couldn't determine through ballistics or other
evidence who actually did the shooting."
"We're not talking about a situation where an individual who's being a
lookout and a murder happens to take place inside a 7-Eleven," she said.
"This [proposal] will give the prosecutor an additional law-enforcement
tool . . . so he can go after the persons who are equally liable."
Steven D. Benjamin, the crime commission's counsel and a defense lawyer,
said there may be a narrow intent to doing away with the rule, but he
cautioned that prosecutors are adept at using circumstantial evidence to
prove intent and premeditation. An intent to kill on the part of an
accomplice may be inferred from the circumstances of the case, even if the
accomplice truthfully did not intend for anyone to be killed.
"People are people and . . . these are tremendously emotional situations,"
he said. "The victims' families, the survivors, are going to press
[prosecutors] for the harshest punishment available," Benjamin told the
commission.
Bruck said that "by abolishing the triggerman rule, we would be greatly
increasing the number of potential [and expensive] capital cases."
But he said juries will sentence very few nontriggermen to death if the
rule is abolished. According to Bruck, the triggerman rule never applied
in murder-for-hire cases and yet no one was sentenced to death as a hirer
in Virginia until 2001.
"It's a classic proposal for spinning our wheels at enormous cost to the
taxpayers," Bruck said.
The commission asked the staff to work on the wording of the bill -- along
with bills that would include the slaying of judges and witnesses as
capital offenses -- and bring them back to the commission for
consideration this year.
(source for both: Richmond Times-Dispatch)
Death-Penalty Cases
A bill to eliminate Virginia's long-standing triggerman rule exposing more
capital-murder accomplices to the death penalty is under consideration.
The rule in many cases bars death sentences for capital-murder
participants who did not, literally, pull the trigger or otherwise
directly kill the victim or victims.
Proponents of the rule argue its elimination would open a whole new class
of less culpable offenders to capital-murder prosecution at great expense
to the state and resulting in few, if any, new death sentences.
Opponents say the rule can tie the hands of prosecutors when more than one
person is equally responsible for a capital murder and that the intent is
not to execute lookouts or others playing less significant roles in
capital murders.
The rule could have jeopardized death sentences won for the murder of the
Harvey family in Richmond or against John Allen Muhammad, one of the
Beltway Snipers, said state Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, who wants
the rule eliminated.
Gilbert said that if the rule were eliminated, prosecutors would still
have to prove an accomplice had the same "willful, deliberate,
premeditated intent to kill" as the triggerman.
David Bruck, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of
Law, said the rule is an essential safeguard. "Courts make mistakes
deciding what people did. But we make a lot more mistakes in deciding what
someone thought or intended," he said.
When life and death are at stake, said Bruck, director of the Virginia
Capital Case Clearinghouse, it is a bad idea to substitute a rule based on
finding facts with one that attempts to figure out what was in someone's
mind and heart. The Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse is a legal aid
clinic providing free services to defense attorneys who represent
capital-murder defendants in cases throughout Virginia.
Under current law, only the triggerman can be executed except in cases of
murder for hire or murder ordered by a drug dealer or terrorist.
In addition, the Virginia Su- preme Court has held that if more than one
person was an immediate perpetrator -- for instance, if one holds a victim
down while another strikes fatal blows with a rock then all such people
are eligible for the death penalty.
The justices also ruled that Muhammad's role as mastermind in the Beltway
snipings established he was an immediate perpetrator, even though Lee Boyd
Malvo was the triggerman.
Gilbert sponsored a bill in the last General Assembly session to eliminate
the triggerman rule, but it was referred to the Virginia State Crime
Commission for study. The commission discussed the matter at its meeting
last Tuesday.
Gilbert's concern is that when 2 or more people play key roles in a
capital murder, it is sometimes not possible to prove who pulled the
trigger, so no one gets the death penalty. He contends that without a
confession, the rule might have prevented a death sentence in the slaying
of the Harvey family in Richmond.
Only 4 of the 38 states with death-penalty laws have a triggerman rule. It
has been part of the state's death-penalty law since it was rewritten in
1977 to overcome U.S. Supreme Court objections that barred executions from
1972 until 1976.
Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert, who won the
death sentence against Muhammad, said the rule muddied the waters in the
case.
"If the law was to require the person to actually pull the trigger, so to
speak, before they could be guilty of capital murder, we would have had a
hard time prosecuting either one of those people because nobody actually
saw them do that, Ebert said.
"I think there are enough safeguards in capital punishment for the defense
without having that as a predicate."
State Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, a former police officer
and now chairman of the crime commission, expressed skepticism last
Tuesday about the need for eliminating the rule.
He said that prosecutors seem to be able to work around it, citing the
death sentences won in the Harvey and Muhammad cases. Indeed, Ricky Javon
Gray, who confessed to the Harvey murders, and Muhammad each got more than
one death sentence.
But Katherine Baldwin, a senior assistant Virginia attorney general, told
the commission: "There have been numerous examples of prosecutors not
being able to proceed with a capital case where they had equally culpable
[killers], but they couldn't determine through ballistics or other
evidence who actually did the shooting."
"We're not talking about a situation where an individual who's being a
lookout and a murder happens to take place inside a 7-Eleven," she said.
"This [proposal] will give the prosecutor an additional law-enforcement
tool . . . so he can go after the persons who are equally liable."
Steven D. Benjamin, the crime commission's counsel and a defense lawyer,
said there may be a narrow intent to doing away with the rule, but he
cautioned that prosecutors are adept at using circumstantial evidence to
prove intent and premeditation. An intent to kill on the part of an
accomplice may be inferred from the circumstances of the case, even if the
accomplice truthfully did not intend for anyone to be killed.
"People are people and . . . these are tremendously emotional situations,"
he said. "The victims' families, the survivors, are going to press
[prosecutors] for the harshest punishment available," Benjamin told the
commission.
Bruck said that "by abolishing the triggerman rule, we would be greatly
increasing the number of potential [and expensive] capital cases."
But he said juries will sentence very few nontriggermen to death if the
rule is abolished. According to Bruck, the triggerman rule never applied
in murder-for-hire cases and yet no one was sentenced to death as a hirer
in Virginia until 2001.
"It's a classic proposal for spinning our wheels at enormous cost to the
taxpayers," Bruck said.
The commission asked the staff to work on the wording of the bill -- along
with bills that would include the slaying of judges and witnesses as
capital offenses -- and bring them back to the commission for
consideration this year.
(source for both: Richmond Times-Dispatch)