Post by Amy on May 3, 2008 16:08:59 GMT -5
Court struggles with death sentence
The Arizona Supreme Court wrestled with life and death -- and the limits
of its own power on Tuesday, before an intent audience of about 400 in the
Payson High School auditorium.
Chief Justice Ruth McGregor of the Arizona Supreme Court invites questions
from the 400-member audience at Payson High School auditorium during the
high court's 1st visit to Gila County April 29.
The justices weighed a plea to spare the life of Cody James Martinez,
based on alleged mistakes by the judge and prosecutors. In intense
questioning, the justices seemed to wave aside the claims the prosecutor
cheated -- but struggled with whether the high court must defer to even a
just barely reasonable jury.
Not even the defense attorney argued that Martinez did not bind, beat and
finally shotgun to death Francisco "Cisco" Aguilar in Tucson in 2003.
However, defense attorneys argued that prosecutors twisted the evidence to
convince the jury to sentence Martinez to death by claiming the motive was
robbery instead of revenge against a man Martinez believed to be a child
molester.
But prosecutors argued that state law bars the high court from doing
anything beyond reviewing death sentences for legal error so long as a
"reasonable" jury could conceivably have arrived at the death sentence.
"So it is the state's position that as long as we can conceive that any
reasonable person could have reached this verdict, there is nothing to
review?" asked Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch.
"That was the intention of the legislature," replied attorney Lisa Stover
Gard, with the state Attorney General's office.
"All we have to conclude is that some reasonable juror could possibly have
reached that verdict?" asked Justice Andrew Hurwitz. "Is that meaningful
review?"
"It seems clear that it was the legislature's intent to remove the Court's
discretion ... but it is not a rubber stamp review," since the Court can
consider legal errors that affected the outcome of the trial, replied
Stover Gard.
The 400 citizens and high school students, some bused in from Heber,
listened quietly to the quick and incisive grilling of lawyers on both
sides of the case. The Court will, within the next several months, rule
whether Martinez is executed for his crimes, has his sentence changed to
life in prison or gets a new trial on the death sentence.
Laura Geiger attended the Supreme Court session that was held in Payson.
The Supreme Court for the past decade has sometimes held its hearings
outside of the downtown Phoenix Supreme Court building, but this week
marked the 1st time the Court has come to either Payson or Gila County.
Martinez's case presented the Court with a brutal and drawn-out murder and
hard questions about how much motive matters in determining which tiny
percentage of murderers actually receive the death penalty.
In Martinez's case, defense attorneys argued that the jury acted
unreasonably when it decided that Martinez committed the murder to steal a
handful of small items, like a gold chain and some CDs. Instead, defense
attorneys argued that Martinez, who was himself allegedly sexually abused
as a child, committed the murder in a simmering rage after learning
Aguilar had allegedly sexually molested the cousin of another member of
the group Martinez and Aguilar both ran with.
However, state law also allows for a death sentence when a murder is
committed during a robbery or kidnapping or committed in an especially
"depraved" or "cruel" manner. The jury decided Martinez qualified for the
death sentence on both those grounds, because Martinez and 4 friends beat
and taunted Aguilar for hours before finally killing him in the desert.
Several men kicked, beat and stabbed him, before Martinez finished him off
with 2 blasts of a shotgun. They then piled trash on the body and set it
on fire to hide evidence. However, the fire itself drew the attention of
police, who stopped them as they left the scene.
The jury decided Martinez should die because he committed the murder for
the money and also in an especially cruel fashion. And after hearing the
defense's pleas for mercy in the sentencing phase, the jury also decided
to impose a death sentence despite Martinez's alleged history of childhood
sexual abuse and the rage allegedly triggered by his belief that Aguilar
was a child molester.
Defense attorney S. Young cited another sentence the Supreme Court had
overturned after a prosecutor misstated the facts of the case to a jury.
"But in that case, what the prosecutor did was central to the
prosecution," said Berch, who, like the other judges, had read hundreds of
pages of legal briefs and trial testimony, in which lawyers had cited
hundreds of other cases to support their arguments.
Justice Michael Ryan asked, "Does this pose a fundamental error?"
referring to a legal mistake that affects the outcome of the trial.
"Yes it was," insisted Young. He conceded his client's guilt and said that
the errors he claimed had to do with the death sentence, not the guilty
verdict.
In fact, many of the justices' questions focused on the issue of whether
the Court was free to decide whether the jury's decision was reasonable.
The questions of several justices seemed to suggest that blaming the
murder on robbery for a handful of stuff strained the "reasonable" juror
standard.
But even if the Court tossed out the robbery finding, the cruelty charge
would stand. Moreover, the state law might bar the judges from
substituting their judgment for the jury's in deciding whether Martinez's
history of abuse and belief Aguilar had abused a child should mitigate the
death sentence.
The justices also sharply questioned one instruction the trial court judge
gave to the jury. The Court had thrown out the instruction in previous
cases because it could coerce a holdout juror.
Young essentially challenged the Court to interpret that law in his
client's favor, "The statute tells you to review all cases that are
excessive," he said.
Several justices seemed ready to discard the robbery basis for the death
sentence, but less so the charge of cruelty.
"Didn't you agree there was sufficient evidence on cruelty?" asked Chief
Justice Ruth McGregor of the evidence that the 4 men abused Aguilar for
hours before they finally killed him.
"Can we apply the standard of the reasonable juror?'" asked Justice Scott
Bales.
"Doesn't that just result in our substituting our judgment for the jury's
judgment?" asked Justice McGregor.
"I have trouble with your client taking justice into his own hands. You
can't be saying that he was justified," said Justice Hurwitz.
Young replied that the behavior of the victim and the child molestation
allegations didn't make Martinez innocent -- but did make a death sentence
unreasonable.
"If we were the sentencing body," said Hurwitz, "you could make a good
argument that we look at this and say it's not enough" to impose the death
penalty.
But that brought the justices right back to the laws limiting the high
court's review.
After 2 hours of such absorbing, intricate arguments on 2 different cases,
the high court ended the hearing and took questions from the audience.
One high school student asked them each to describe their "hardest case."
Everyone agreed the death penalty cases caused them the most agony.
"All the death penalty cases are difficult," said Bales. "The
circumstances of the victim's lives and often of the defendant's lives are
very bad. Those are the hardest cases at the end of the day."
"A lot of these defendants did horrible things," agreed Justice Ryan, "but
they also had horrible backgrounds. And even so, you can't understand why
they did it."
(source: Payson Roundup)
The Arizona Supreme Court wrestled with life and death -- and the limits
of its own power on Tuesday, before an intent audience of about 400 in the
Payson High School auditorium.
Chief Justice Ruth McGregor of the Arizona Supreme Court invites questions
from the 400-member audience at Payson High School auditorium during the
high court's 1st visit to Gila County April 29.
The justices weighed a plea to spare the life of Cody James Martinez,
based on alleged mistakes by the judge and prosecutors. In intense
questioning, the justices seemed to wave aside the claims the prosecutor
cheated -- but struggled with whether the high court must defer to even a
just barely reasonable jury.
Not even the defense attorney argued that Martinez did not bind, beat and
finally shotgun to death Francisco "Cisco" Aguilar in Tucson in 2003.
However, defense attorneys argued that prosecutors twisted the evidence to
convince the jury to sentence Martinez to death by claiming the motive was
robbery instead of revenge against a man Martinez believed to be a child
molester.
But prosecutors argued that state law bars the high court from doing
anything beyond reviewing death sentences for legal error so long as a
"reasonable" jury could conceivably have arrived at the death sentence.
"So it is the state's position that as long as we can conceive that any
reasonable person could have reached this verdict, there is nothing to
review?" asked Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch.
"That was the intention of the legislature," replied attorney Lisa Stover
Gard, with the state Attorney General's office.
"All we have to conclude is that some reasonable juror could possibly have
reached that verdict?" asked Justice Andrew Hurwitz. "Is that meaningful
review?"
"It seems clear that it was the legislature's intent to remove the Court's
discretion ... but it is not a rubber stamp review," since the Court can
consider legal errors that affected the outcome of the trial, replied
Stover Gard.
The 400 citizens and high school students, some bused in from Heber,
listened quietly to the quick and incisive grilling of lawyers on both
sides of the case. The Court will, within the next several months, rule
whether Martinez is executed for his crimes, has his sentence changed to
life in prison or gets a new trial on the death sentence.
Laura Geiger attended the Supreme Court session that was held in Payson.
The Supreme Court for the past decade has sometimes held its hearings
outside of the downtown Phoenix Supreme Court building, but this week
marked the 1st time the Court has come to either Payson or Gila County.
Martinez's case presented the Court with a brutal and drawn-out murder and
hard questions about how much motive matters in determining which tiny
percentage of murderers actually receive the death penalty.
In Martinez's case, defense attorneys argued that the jury acted
unreasonably when it decided that Martinez committed the murder to steal a
handful of small items, like a gold chain and some CDs. Instead, defense
attorneys argued that Martinez, who was himself allegedly sexually abused
as a child, committed the murder in a simmering rage after learning
Aguilar had allegedly sexually molested the cousin of another member of
the group Martinez and Aguilar both ran with.
However, state law also allows for a death sentence when a murder is
committed during a robbery or kidnapping or committed in an especially
"depraved" or "cruel" manner. The jury decided Martinez qualified for the
death sentence on both those grounds, because Martinez and 4 friends beat
and taunted Aguilar for hours before finally killing him in the desert.
Several men kicked, beat and stabbed him, before Martinez finished him off
with 2 blasts of a shotgun. They then piled trash on the body and set it
on fire to hide evidence. However, the fire itself drew the attention of
police, who stopped them as they left the scene.
The jury decided Martinez should die because he committed the murder for
the money and also in an especially cruel fashion. And after hearing the
defense's pleas for mercy in the sentencing phase, the jury also decided
to impose a death sentence despite Martinez's alleged history of childhood
sexual abuse and the rage allegedly triggered by his belief that Aguilar
was a child molester.
Defense attorney S. Young cited another sentence the Supreme Court had
overturned after a prosecutor misstated the facts of the case to a jury.
"But in that case, what the prosecutor did was central to the
prosecution," said Berch, who, like the other judges, had read hundreds of
pages of legal briefs and trial testimony, in which lawyers had cited
hundreds of other cases to support their arguments.
Justice Michael Ryan asked, "Does this pose a fundamental error?"
referring to a legal mistake that affects the outcome of the trial.
"Yes it was," insisted Young. He conceded his client's guilt and said that
the errors he claimed had to do with the death sentence, not the guilty
verdict.
In fact, many of the justices' questions focused on the issue of whether
the Court was free to decide whether the jury's decision was reasonable.
The questions of several justices seemed to suggest that blaming the
murder on robbery for a handful of stuff strained the "reasonable" juror
standard.
But even if the Court tossed out the robbery finding, the cruelty charge
would stand. Moreover, the state law might bar the judges from
substituting their judgment for the jury's in deciding whether Martinez's
history of abuse and belief Aguilar had abused a child should mitigate the
death sentence.
The justices also sharply questioned one instruction the trial court judge
gave to the jury. The Court had thrown out the instruction in previous
cases because it could coerce a holdout juror.
Young essentially challenged the Court to interpret that law in his
client's favor, "The statute tells you to review all cases that are
excessive," he said.
Several justices seemed ready to discard the robbery basis for the death
sentence, but less so the charge of cruelty.
"Didn't you agree there was sufficient evidence on cruelty?" asked Chief
Justice Ruth McGregor of the evidence that the 4 men abused Aguilar for
hours before they finally killed him.
"Can we apply the standard of the reasonable juror?'" asked Justice Scott
Bales.
"Doesn't that just result in our substituting our judgment for the jury's
judgment?" asked Justice McGregor.
"I have trouble with your client taking justice into his own hands. You
can't be saying that he was justified," said Justice Hurwitz.
Young replied that the behavior of the victim and the child molestation
allegations didn't make Martinez innocent -- but did make a death sentence
unreasonable.
"If we were the sentencing body," said Hurwitz, "you could make a good
argument that we look at this and say it's not enough" to impose the death
penalty.
But that brought the justices right back to the laws limiting the high
court's review.
After 2 hours of such absorbing, intricate arguments on 2 different cases,
the high court ended the hearing and took questions from the audience.
One high school student asked them each to describe their "hardest case."
Everyone agreed the death penalty cases caused them the most agony.
"All the death penalty cases are difficult," said Bales. "The
circumstances of the victim's lives and often of the defendant's lives are
very bad. Those are the hardest cases at the end of the day."
"A lot of these defendants did horrible things," agreed Justice Ryan, "but
they also had horrible backgrounds. And even so, you can't understand why
they did it."
(source: Payson Roundup)