Nov. 11
CONNECTICUT:
Bridgewater Professor Sees End to Use of Capital Punishment
Though Connecticut executed its first death row inmate in over 45 years
this past spring, serial killer Michael Ross, a Bridgewater man who
teaches constitutional law said the direction of U.S. Supreme Court
rulings over the long term shows an evolution away from this form of
punishment.
"I would like to see it abolished," said Dr. Harold Schramm, a professor
of justice and law administration at Western Connecticut State University,
in an interview last week at the tiny but functional one-room legal clinic
located at the school's midtown campus in Danbury.
In the summer, the professor joined 20 other scholars from varied
disciplines at a National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) program in
Maryland to learn and share ideas about the history of punishment in the
world. He came away energized as a classroom instructor, he said, and
imbued with a conviction that the death penalty is no longer justifiable
by modern American cultural standards.
As a result, Dr. Schramm is preparing 2 papers for publication next year,
one on the court's recent death penalty restrictions and the other on what
he considers the stereotypes of the so-called "Black Legend" of the
Spanish Inquisition as it is cited in Supreme Court opinions.
"This summer led me to realize that very little in law is absolute-that
much of what we think about takes time and reconsideration and
reexamination," he said. As our culture evolves, so too, he said, does the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on
the use of "cruel and unusual punishment."
Over time, he hopes, the highest court in the land will develop a new
definition of "cruel and unusual," one that abolishes capital punishment.
Michael Ross, who admitted to raping and killing seven women and girls in
the early 1980s, became the first person to be put to death in Connecticut
since 1960. He died by lethal injection. Another 7 inmates remain on death
row in this state.
Although an estimated 300 people showed up in Somers to protest the May 13
execution, the majority of Americans support capital punishment. Gallup
poll results over the last decade have shown that approval of the death
penalty hovers at around 70 %, although that figure falls to less than 60
% when respondents are given an alternative to it-a sentence of life
without parole.
A legislative measure to repeal the death penalty in Connecticut, which
would have spared Mr. Ross' life, failed this past March by an 89 to 60
vote in the House. Legislators from Litchfield County voted to preserve
capital punishment, with the exception of Democrat Roberta Willis of
Lakeville, who supported the bill.
The U.S. Supreme Court began wading into the death penalty debate some 30
years ago, Dr. Schramm pointed out.
The decision in a 1972 death penalty case, Furman v. Georgia, could be
called an evolutionary leap: the court used the words of the late Chief
Justice Earl Warren (from a 1958 opinion), when it found that "evolving
standards of decency" made mandatory death sentences unconstitutional.
"The court said we want to individualize," Dr. Schramm explained. The
judge or the jury now has to look at the "aggravating or mitigating
circumstances" in a separate sentencing procedure before it can make a
death sentence determination.
As Dr. Schramm views it, the death penalty may have been inevitable in the
historical context of 500 years ago, when life itself was far more brutal,
but today's standards have evolved into concern for the rights of the
individual. And that, he inferred, should put the death penalty in this
country on a path for extinction.
"I think that we have become a society which is enlightened," he
explained. "I think we've begun to examine that individuals have varying
degrees of responsibilities, depending upon lots of factors. ... We would
say as a society ... that the death penalty is extraordinary punishment
now, rather than an ordinary one."
In what he termed a "historical irony," Dr. Schramm said he discovered in
the course of his research during the NEH program that the Inquisition was
not as "purely evil" as its been made out to be.
"The Supreme Court," he pointed out, "had cited the Inquisition as [a
negative example] in 20 cases, arguing that our system was correct and
that the proof of that was the negative example of the Inquisition."
But his research at the Folger Shakespeare Library and the Library of
Congress in Washington, D.C., suggested something else.
"The summer showed me that even in the Inquisition, even in persecutions
in early modern times, the use of the death penalty was not common. ... .
There were procedural protections in place and that it was probably rarer
in application than our generalizations allow us to concede. ... . They
looked for corroborating evidence. They looked for standards of proof."
In modern society, he went on to say, the death penalty is no longer a
deterrent to crime, although death penalty advocates often disagree with
this assertion. He also contended that groups such as The Innocence
Project, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, have shown that innocent
people are sometimes convicted.
In response to the Supreme Court's 1972 decision, Connecticut rewrote its
death penalty laws in 1973 to define what constitutes a capital felony,
and to specify the process for sentencing a convicted person to death. The
state also presaged later Supreme Court rulings by setting the minimum age
for execution at 18, and, in 2001, forbidding the execution of those who
are deemed mentally retarded.
Citing instances in which states like Connecticut have banned execution of
the mentally retarded, the Supreme Court followed the path of "evolving
standards" and made it the law of the land in a 2002 case involving a
mildly retarded man. The court placed another restriction on capital
punishment this year, in Roper v. Simmons, finding that executing a person
who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime also falls into the
"cruel and unusual punishment" category.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by former
president Gerald Ford, said that there was no reason to disagree with the
judgment of "the legislatures that have recently addressed the matter."
Justice Antonin Scalia, who was appointed by former president Ronald
Reagan, scolded the narrow majority, which included retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, for their judicial activism. He wrote, "Seldom has an
opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal
views of its members."
On a personal level, Dr. Schramm said he is opposed to the death penalty,
but he disagrees with Justice Scalia on whether or not the court is the
appropriate place to evolve one's standards of justice. He thinks it is,
favoring a "living constitution," or one whose interpretation changes over
time.
Application of the death penalty over the course of this country's history
has not in any sense been on a straight trajectory. The number of
executions gradually rose from the 17th century through the mid-part of
the 20th century, fell to zero in the late 1960s, and then rose again in
the late 1980s and 90s. Currently more than 3,000 inmates are on death
row.
Despite the recent changes to the high court's makeup-President George
Bush's appointee for the Chief Justice spot, John Roberts, was recently
sworn in and his nomination to replace Justice O'Connor, Samuel Alito,
faces confirmation hearings in January-Dr. Schramm said he hopes the
Supreme Court continues on the path of making the death penalty more
restrictive. A potential constitutional case, he said, "may be the
so-called CSI effect-that we want convictions and sentences of death based
on scientifically unchallengeable evidence."
In this term, the high court has agreed to hear several death penalty
cases, but it showed little sympathy last month for one that involved
claims of the inappropriate destruction of DNA evidence. It rejected
without comment the final appeal of a Virginia man convicted of killing a
pool hall manager during a robbery in 1998 and was sentenced to die.
According to the Connecticut Network Against the Death Penalty, if his
Nov. 30 execution goes forward, Robin Lovitt will become the 1,000th
person to face the death chamber in this nation's history.
Dr. Schramm has taught legal studies for 37 years and has a limited law
practice in Bridgewater, where he lives with his wife, Pat, who is his
"biggest supporter" and a retired school nurse.
(source: Litchfield County Times)
ALABAMA:
Embracing a culture of life
At one time, Alabama executed death row inmates at midnight in a
contraption straight out of a horror movie: Yellow Mama, the state's
electric chair. Even when Yellow Mama worked right, it burned and
disfigured inmates; when it didn't, flame erupted from electrodes, smoke
billowed from under the hood covering an inmate's head and the stench of
burning flesh seeped into the witness room.
Now, the state straps inmates to a gurney at 6 p.m. and injects a poison
cocktail into their veins that kills them.
These days, the killing is less gruesome. But the tidier dispatching of
death row inmates cannot mask this truth: It is still taking a life. And
it's not just the state of Alabama killing them. It is the state killing
them on behalf of all its citizens.
Grantt Culliver, who as the warden of Holman Correctional Facility is the
state's executioner, sums up this point best in discussing how he views
carrying out executions.
"I look at it as part of the job," Culliver said. "The people of the state
of Alabama, because of the way the laws are written, are as responsible as
I am. I am the pawn or tool. The responsibility lies with the people of
Alabama."
The people of Alabama should be alarmed at what is happening in their
name. As The News' editorials Sunday through Thursday have shown,
Alabama's capital punishment system comes nowhere close to ensuring that
justice is done.
The ultimate punishment is inflicted, at best, haphazardly. The outcome of
capital murder trials can be affected by arbitrary factors such as the
status of the accused, the race of the victim and more than a little luck.
One of the most crucial factors is the quality of legal representation;
Alabama doesn't provide for an adequate defense, much less the vigorous
defense a life-or-death case demands. That raises the specter of the worst
failure the state's criminal justice system could ever experience: the
execution of an innocent man or woman.
The Alabama system is under review by the American Bar Association, the
Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama and the state chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union, among others. The people of Alabama - in the form
of their state government - should conduct a thorough review of their own.
The Legislature, in the session that begins in January, quickly should
pass a law suspending the death penalty while a commission examines
problems with Alabama's system of capital punishment. State Sen. Hank
Sanders, D-Selma, has sponsored such legislation for years running, and
will again in the 2006 session, but it has not come close to passing. Next
year it must.
Sanders believes the moratorium idea is already gaining momentum. He sees
it in the hundreds of organizations, businesses, churches and local
governments that have signed on, and in poll numbers that show close to 60
% of Alabamians like the idea.
The July poll pointed out many people have concerns about how fairly the
death penalty is applied. While more than 7 in 10 favor capital
punishment, about 57 % of those surveyed say they favor a moratorium until
questions over the way the death penalty is applied can be worked out.
There is even a suggestion in the poll numbers that politicians would have
stronger support among voters if they support a moratorium. That is a
glimmer of hope for those of us who revere life and who believe the state
should get out of the killing business.
"What it's showing is that it's an issue the public is concerned about,"
Sanders said. "A number of people (legislators) are afraid people may
think it may appear soft on crime, but knowing they're in line with the
public might help."
Even before that poll, death penalty legislation in the last session met
with unprecedented success, Sanders said. A legislative committee passed
Sanders' moratorium bill, a bill to strip judges of the power to impose
death sentences against a jury's wishes, and bills to outlaw the execution
of juveniles and the mentally retarded (in keeping with U.S. Supreme Court
rulings). Although none of those bills passed the full Legislature, the
success in committee gave Sanders hope.
"There is a growing understanding that there is a great injustice going
on, and it's not going to be politically devastating to take a stand," he
said.
Still, the political reality in Alabama is that the people of this state
have a long way to go before they will accept an end to capital
punishment. Politicians regularly run for office bragging of their fervor
for the death penalty.
Fairest system:
Until Alabama is ready to embrace a culture of life, the state at the very
least must ensure the fairest possible system of prosecuting those accused
of capital murder. Just as those who support life in the abortion debate
try to attack and eliminate the worst problems (such as partial-birth
abortions), the state at least must fix the worst of what ails its system
of capital punishment.
Here are ways that can happen:
The Legislature must establish a statewide indigent defense system that
ensures qualified lawyers are available to poor defendants through trial
and every appeal. The public defender system should have resources
comparable to local district attorneys and the state attorney general's
offices. In addition, lawyers who handle death penalty cases should be
required to undergo intensive training in the special circumstances and
demands of a capital trial.
Take away the power of circuit judges to impose death sentences when a
jury recommends a sentence of life in prison without parole. Alabama is
one of only a handful of states that grant judges this power and the only
state where it is used liberally. Political pressure can be (and has been)
used to urge judges, who are elected, to resort to the override power. The
state should remove that temptation.
Establish a uniform system with state oversight to guide prosecutors in
deciding when to seek the death penalty. The system should include a
process of review, so that defendants can challenge a prosecutor's
decision on the front end.
Require prosecutors in a capital case to turn over every bit of evidence -
helpful or not - to the defense. They already are required to turn over
helpful information; but sometimes, disputes occur over whether a
particular piece of information would aid the defense. Some prosecutors
already have discovered it's easier to turn over everything than to
quibble later over what wasn't made available to the defendant. North
Carolina has passed a law requiring open-file discovery in all felony
cases; Alabama should at least do so for death penalty cases.
Put safeguards in place to address chronic problems that crop up in death
penalty cases with regard to eyewitness testimony, the use of jailhouse
snitches and police interrogation procedures. In Illinois, state lawmakers
created a pretrial hearing to determine the credibility of jailhouse
informants, improved police lineup procedures and required the use of
audio- or videotapes in most homicide interrogations or confessions.
Alabama should do the same.
Reduce the number of crimes that qualify for a death sentence, taking care
to reserve the ultimate punishment for the most serious crimes and to
remove senseless distinctions - such as the one making it a death penalty
crime to shoot someone to death from your car, but not necessarily while
outside the car or in a home.
Set up reasonable guidelines about what constitutes mental retardation, in
keeping with the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down executions of
the retarded.
Pass laws outlawing the execution of people for crimes they committed as
juveniles, in keeping with another U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Make sure evidence in capital cases is preserved to allow for DNA testing
where it could determine guilt or innocence, and ease the way for the
testing to take place. Prosecutors routinely resist postconviction DNA
testing, but what do they have to lose? If it proves someone is guilty,
the prosecution should feel better. If it proves someone innocent, the
prosecution should feel relieved. Other states already have made
provisions to make DNA testing more readily available.
Devise a system to review death penalty cases prosecuted before these
reforms (while lawyer pay was deplorably low) to try to ensure no innocent
person is executed.
Study the correlation between race and the death penalty, and make changes
to the law or in practices to try to ensure that the ultimate punishment
is about the severity of the crime, not the skin color of the defendant
and victim.
Protect people with serious mental illness from being executed for crimes
they committed while psychotic.
Taken together, these proposals are not an inexpensive proposition. The
state already spends $40 million a year paying court-appointed lawyers to
defend poor suspects. A statewide indigent defense system likely would
cost much more.
That means it's even less likely the Legislature, which every year patches
together an operating budget with smoke and mirrors, will undertake these
reforms.
Still not enough:
Even if all these steps were taken, they would not be enough to satisfy
The News' editorial board that the death penalty is appropriate for
Alabama. But these improvements would at least increase the chances only
the worst of the worst among those who kill would receive the ultimate
punishment. They also would lower the risk an innocent person could be
killed or spend years on death row before earning release. The system
would be more fair and reliable. But no system of justice run by humans is
perfectly fair or foolproof.
Is that standard too high to demand? Not when we're talking about a
punishment that can't be undone, a sentence as final as death.
Our readers are, as always, free to disagree, and many will. But even the
most ardent supporter of the death penalty shouldn't want to see the state
execute the wrong person for a crime. Most of us can agree, at least in
theory, that a death sentence ought to be imposed only after a diligent
legal review, only in a process that is exceedingly fair, and only against
those who can be held fully responsible for their actions.
To insist on that isn't to coddle criminals. It's certainly not to devalue
the lives of murder victims. Our belief is that taking a killer's life
doesn't add value to his victim's life.
Indeed, we believe that taking life to show how much we value life - much
like destroying embryos to get life-saving stem cells - represents a
contradiction in logic that cannot be reconciled.
Life has value: the life of a microscopic smattering of cells, the life of
an aging person beset by Alzheimer's, even the life of someone who has
killed another.
In a death penalty state, The Birmingham News chooses life.
(source: Editorial, Birmingham News)
OHIO:
Killer who broke deal argues for new trial ---- Closed plea hearing, use
of confession in error, court told
Robert W. Bethel Jr. was convicted in 2003 of killing 2 teens.
A former Columbus gang member who was sentenced to death after refusing to
testify against his accomplice in the killing of 2 teenagers should get a
new trial because of errors in the original proceedings, the man's
attorney told the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Robert W. Bethel Jr. deserves a new trial because the Franklin County
Common Pleas Court closed to the public the hearing at which Bethel
accepted a plea agreement to save his life, said Bethel's attorney, Ravert
J. Clark.
Bethel later reneged on the agreement by refusing to testify against
Jeremy Chavis, who helped Bethel kill 18-year-old James Reynolds and
14-year-old Shannon K. Hawk in 1996. Prosecutors said Bethel and Chavis,
both members of the South Side Mafia gang, killed Reynolds because they
suspected that he would testify against the gang's leader. Hawk was
Reynolds' girlfriend and with him at the time.
There were no living witnesses to the killings in an isolated South Side
field. Prosecutors had expected that Bethel's confession and testimony
against Chavis would be pivotal in both trials.
The murders had gone unsolved for 4 years before an informant offered
information in exchange for a lesser sentence on a firearms violation.
Clark told the Supreme Court that Bethel's 2003 trial was tainted by
several errors, including the closed plea-agreement hearing and the
court's refusal to throw out Bethel's taped confession after prosecutors
decided to pursue the death penalty. Clark argued that Bethel gave the
confession only on condition that he not face capital punishment.
The closed plea hearing, which Clark said the trial court has never
explained, was a serious enough breach to justify a new trial, the lawyer
said.
"In a death-penalty case, closing a courtroom during a plea hearing - I
don't know of anything that is more of a structural flaw," Clark said.
Bethel, 27, was convicted of aggravated murder. Chavis, 26, was convicted
of the same charge but did not face the death penalty because he was 17 at
the time of the killings.
Franklin County Assistant Prosecutor Richard A. Termuhlen II said the plea
hearing was closed out of concern that gang members would attack Bethel if
they knew he had agreed to testify against Chavis. The plea agreement
itself was placed under court seal, Termuhlen said.
"Clearly if the agreement is to be under seal, it doesn't do any good to
have an open hearing in which you have the media, interested bystanders
and people who may have ill intent," he said.
Termuhlen said prosecutors never reneged on their end of the plea bargain
because Bethel had never intended to testify against Chavis.
"He acknowledged that he never had any intention of abiding by the terms
of that contract," Termuhlen said.
Justices didn't comment on the lawyers' arguments. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer
said Bethel took a big risk by going back on his agreement to testify
against Chavis.
"It is the ultimate high-stakes poker: You testify, you don't lose your
life; you refuse to testify, you're subject to death," Pfeifer said.
(source: Columbus Dispatch)
******************
Taft duty unchanged in Spirko death case
The 60-Day reprieve requested by Attorney General Jim Petro and granted to
inmate John Spirko by Gov. Bob Taft seems to show careful flexibility in
how the death penalty is administered.
The reprieve was a welcome step, given the alternative. But what it most
reveals are serious problems in how Ohio officials review death penalty
cases - how the closest scrutiny seems to come at the very last minute,
and in response to national attention, which Mr. Spirko's case is
receiving.
Thus, the reprieve should not be seen by Gov. Taft as evidence of a system
that works. To the contrary, it should confirm the need to grant clemency
and to commute the death penalty to a life sentence for a criminal
conviction that's irredeemably flawed.
This marks the 2nd reprieve Mr. Spirko has received in recent months.
Attorney General Petro asked that the execution be delayed just days
before a September execution date so the state parole board - which had
already issued its report recommending against clemency - could hold a new
hearing.
The need for a rehearing was prompted by a detailed report in The
(Cleveland) Plain Dealer about how the attorney general's office had
misstated facts during the original clemency hearing.
The 2nd delay only came late Monday afternoon - more than 20 years after
Mr. Spirko was convicted of murdering Betty Jane Mottinger, and less than
8 days before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection.
It will enable the state crime lab to perform DNA and fingerprint testing
of various pieces of physical evidence collected during the investigation
of the Mottinger's murder in 1982.
The tests have been sought by Mr. Spirko's lawyers to help prove what they
claim to be his innocence. The specific purpose is to see whether
scientific evidence connects the crime to another suspect - one wholly
unrelated to Mr. Spirko who a state investigator brought to the attention
of the FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in 1997.
Neither federal agency followed up. The Center on Wrongful Convictions at
Northwestern University Law School acted where law enforcement officials
failed to. Last month, it had a polygraph test performed on the original
tipster.
The results showed he did not act deceptively when providing information
about the other suspect in the Mottinger murder.
Only then did Mr. Petro agree to have the crime scene evidence tested. The
new tests may not prove anything conclusively. But some things will remain
clear even amid the system's last-minute lurchings:
If Gov. Taft is genuinely dedicated to avoiding wrongful execution -
rather than just appearances of due process - he will not allow the Spirko
execution to go forward.
(source: Editorial, Dayton Daily News)
OREGON:
Jury swiftly gives killer new death sentence -- 20-minute decision Robert
Langley seems poised to continue his court battle in suffocating a woman
Robert Paul Langley Jr. probably took more time to suffocate Anne Louise
Gray than a Marion County jury spent deciding he should die, too.
The jury needed less than 20 minutes -- perhaps the shortest deliberation
in an Oregon death penalty case since voters reinstated capital punishment
in 1984.
Langley, who has had three death sentences overturned by the Oregon
Supreme Court, refused to put up a defense during the trial, which ended
Wednesday after 7 days -- possibly another brevity record on the Oregon
death penalty.
Langley said he would not "participate" in his trial after a judge refused
his request to grant him new lawyers.
The case will be automatically appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
The only 2 men Oregon has executed in the past 20 years -- Douglas
Franklin Wright in 1996 and Harry Charles Moore in 1997 -- abandoned their
appeals after the automatic Supreme Court review.
Langley has given no indication that he, too, intends to "volunteer" to be
executed. On the contrary, by complaining about his legal representation,
some experts say, he could be trying to lay the groundwork for another
reversal.
Langley becomes the 30th member of Oregon's death row. His case dates to
1989, when separate Marion County juries sentenced him to death for the
murders of Gray and Larry Rockenbrant.
Langley killed Gray, an acquaintance, in late 1987 by covering her mouth
and nose with duct tape, wrapping a shoelace around her throat and
watching her die. He buried her bound body in his aunt's backyard in
Salem.
At the time, Langley was living at the Oregon State Hospital in a program
for mentally and emotionally disturbed inmates.
In the spring of 1988, he used a baseball bat to kill Rockenbrant, a
former prison pal. He buried Rockenbrant's body in what was supposed to be
a therapeutic cactus garden on the grounds of the state hospital.
The discovery of Rockenbrant's body prompted Langley's aunt to tell police
about the hole her nephew dug in her yard. There, police found Gray's
decomposed corpse.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed both cases. It overturned the death
sentence in the Gray case because the judge did not allow Langley to
present evidence that might have caused the jury to spare his life. The
court overturned his conviction for killing Rockenbrant, saying the judge
should not have allowed jurors to hear about the Gray murder.
Langley was convicted again of killing Rockenbrant and given a sentence of
life with a minimum of 30 years. Another jury sentenced him to death for
killing Gray.
The Supreme Court overturned his death sentence in 2000 because the judge
did not allow the jury to consider a sentence of life without the
possibility of parole.
In 2003, a judge fired Langley's lawyers when they said they weren't ready
for trial. Since then, Langley has filed bar complaints against four other
attorneys appointed to represent him.
Last summer, Marion County Judge Joseph Ochoa said Langley was going to
trial in October no matter what.
That prompted his decision to attend the trial in his white prison
jumpsuit without a lawyer, silently scribbling notes while prosecutors
described him as a monster whose lengthy criminal career included
burglaries, robberies, assaults, raping a cellmate and molesting his
brother.
"There is nothing in his background that would justify a sentence less
than death," said Stephen Dingle, Marion County deputy district attorney.
(source: The Oregonian)
KENTUCKY:
Defendant described as killer, victim ---- Trial opens in shootings during
2004 drug deal
Isiah Fugett is a cold, calm and deadly killer who "slaughtered" two
University of Louisville freshmen during a January 2004 drug deal for
$175, a prosecutor told jurors in the first day of Fugett's murder trial
yesterday.
But Fugett's attorneys say he was the victim -- shooting Eric Ray, 19, and
Robert Robbins, 18, only after they pulled out weapons during a drug buy.
Fugett was trying to "protect himself from a very real threat of being
robbed or killed," Mike Lemke, an attorney for Fugett, told jurors in his
opening statements yesterday.
The trial, in which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against
Fugett, will include several contradictory statements Fugett made to
police after the shootings, evidence about the handgun used in the
slayings, and testimony about Ray's and Robbins' use of marijuana.
And prosecutors promised an eyewitness account from an airline pilot who
saw part of the attack.
Prosecutor Jason Butler told jurors yesterday that the pilot, William
Morris, looked out his window at the Clarion Hotel at First and Jefferson
streets late on Jan. 26 after hearing gunshots and screaming in the
parking lot.
When he looked down, he saw Robbins "running for his life" and watched
Fugett fire shots from a handgun into his back, Butler said. Fugett then
walked calmly back to his vehicle and drove away, Butler told the jury.
Morris went outside and found Robbins writhing and shaking in the snow,
screaming for help, Butler said.
While with Robbins, Morris noticed a body yards away. Ray lay dead,
partially underneath a black sport utility vehicle, having been shot three
times, Butler said.
Robbins died at University Hospital without identifying his killer.
Fugett, who wore a gray and black sweater and tan pants yesterday, has
pleaded not guilty to two charges of murder and not guilty to one count
each of robbery and tampering with physical evidence.
Just hours before the shooting, relatives of Ray and Robbins testified
yesterday, the 2 were studying.
Robbins had left his Oldham County home to spend the night with Ray, which
family members said was not unusual. Ray lived in the 800 block of East
Main Street, not far from the parking lot where he was killed.
The prosecution and defense agree that Ray, Robbins and Fugett eventually
met at the hotel parking lot for a drug deal -- Fugett would sell them an
ounce of marijuana for $175.
And prosecutors acknowledge that Ray and Robbins had a shotgun in the SUV
-- one they used for hunting and target practice. But the prosecution and
defense differ on who brought the handgun and who initiated the robbery.
Prosecutors say Fugett had the handgun, killing Ray and Robbins for the
cash.
"This is not what they deserved for trying to buy marijuana," Butler said.
Fugett changed his story to police repeatedly, Butler noted, saying that
he wasn't there, then that someone else had done it and finally that he
acted in self-defense.
Lemke told jurors that Fugett first told a friend, Dalisha Fields, that
Ray and Robbins tried to rob him -- the same thing he told police. Lemke
said Ray pulled the handgun out and Fugett took it away from him.
Police later located the handgun and shotgun in the possession of Fields.
Lemke said there is no evidence that Fugett brought the handgun to the
drug deal.
Also yesterday, family members of Ray and Robbins testified about the
devastating loss of the men, who were described as being closer than
brothers since middle school.
One juror wiped her eyes repeatedly as Ray's mother, Kathy Ray, sobbed
during her testimony.
"I had one son who grew under my heart and two boys who now live in it,"
Kathy Ray said.
The trial will continue Tuesday and is expected to last through next week.
(source: The Courier-Journal)
