Death Penalty Motion Stays in Sniper Case

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 11/12/03 | Matthew Barakat

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) - The judge in the trial of sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad on Wednesday rejected defense motions that would have stricken the death penalty from the jury's consideration.

Muhammad, 42, is on trial for the Oct. 9, 2002, slaying of Dean Harold Meyers outside a Manassas-area gas station. Meyers' death is one of 16 shootings prosecutors say were committed by Muhammad and his alleged accomplice, 18-year-old Lee Boyd Malvo.

In Malvo's trial, 15 miles away in Chesapeake, the judge denied a defense request Wednesday to dismiss the pool of 28 people from which each side is to strike six to achieve a jury of 12 plus four alternates. Malvo is charged with two counts of capital murder in the killing of FBI analyst Linda Franklin on Oct. 14, 2002.

Malvo defense attorney Craig Cooley had argued the pool was unfair because some potential jurors who oppose the death penalty were excluded by Virginia law. Defense lawyers had conceded there was little chance Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush would accept the argument but said it was an issue that could be raised on appeal.

"The law in Virginia at this point is settled," Marum said in denying the motion.

Muhammad and Malvo each face two counts of capital murder, one alleging multiple murders committed over a three-year period and another charging that each defendant engaged in a form of terrorism by killing random people throughout the Washington area.

Muhammad's attorneys say that under the multiple murder statute, Muhammad is ineligible for the death penalty because there is no evidence he pulled the trigger in the Meyers killing. They argue Virginia case law makes clear that only a triggerman can get the death penalty under the statute.

Prosecutors at Muhammad's trial disagree, however, arguing that Muhammad was the mastermind of last year's sniper spree even if Malvo was the triggerman. They allege that Muhammad exerted undue control over the younger Malvo. They also argue that when a sniper team works in tandem, the spotter bears as much responsibility for the killing as the triggerman.

"It takes two to tango in this type of relationship," said lead prosecutor Paul Ebert during a motions hearing Monday.

Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. ruled Wednesday that whether Muhammad was the triggerman was not relevant. He said prosecutors must show instead that Muhammad was an "immediate perpetrator."

Also, defense lawyers have sought to strike the terrorism charge, arguing there is no evidence Muhammad exerted the degree of control over Malvo required by the statute.

The terrorism law was enacted by the Virginia legislature after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to target "the evil masterminds" of terrorist acts who may not have actually carried them out.

Prosecutor James Willett argued Monday that the statute applies to more than "the Osama bin Laden type" of terrorist, and argued that "common sense shows Mr. Muhammad was the director of these operations."

Prosecutors have already said that a primary motive for the shootings was financial - that Muhammad and Malvo were attempting to extort $10 million from the government.

[struwwelpeter]

but said it was an issue that could be raised on appeal

And that in a nutshell is why there is a Guantameno Bay.

[xsrdx]

The local and national media covers every defense motion in both of these sniper trials like they're momentous events, going ga-ga every time a defense lawyer speaks.

JAM and LM are guilty, and both will be sentenced to death.

This is not the OJ trial; both are buried under mountains of admissable, physical and circumstantial evidence.

The defense teams are desperate - justifiably so, but their clients are going to die. Soon, with any luck.