Convicted DC Sniper Appeals Verdict, Death Penalty(Sniper alert)

Reuters ^ | Tue February 10, 2004 04:40 PM ET | By Deborah Zabarenko

[gdyniawitawa]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Convicted sniper John Muhammad appealed his guilty verdict and death sentence in one of 10 fatal shootings that terrorized Washington, D.C. and argued his conviction was based on guesswork and emotion, not facts and law.

Muhammad, a 43-year-old Gulf War veteran, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death last November in the first trial stemming from the 2002 sniper siege in and around the U.S. capital.

In legal papers filed on Monday, Muhammad's lawyers maintained that the jury could not separate the facts of the case from the inflammatory evidence presented at trial, including family photos of sniper victims, audio recordings of frantic calls for help and graphic testimony from medical examiners.

"Jurors are only humans with the emotions and sensitivities of ordinary people, not trained in the law, who were given the task of making factual determinations of guilt and innocence in a backdrop of horror during the guilt phase" of Muhammad's trial," the lawyers wrote.

The attorneys argued that the guilty verdict should either be overturned or a new trial granted to Muhammad. They also wrote that the death penalty was inappropriate in this case.

Muhammad's trial in the Oct. 9, 2002, death of Dean Meyers was moved from its original location in Washington's Virginia suburbs to Virginia Beach, some 200 miles away, to avoid a prejudiced jury.

But the defense team argued that statements made by jurors after they recommended the death sentence showed that they relied heavily on Muhammad's demeanor in court -- notably what they called his lack of remorse -- rather than the specifics of Virginia's capital punishment law.

The lawyers also objected to trial Judge LeRoy Millette's decision to bar expert psychological and medical testimony. LeRoy Millette banned such testimony on the grounds that Muhammad refused to allow a psychological evaluation.

"Barring all expert testimony deprived the defendant of the right to present his only mitigation defense -- that of extreme deprivation and physical abuse as a child," the lawyers wrote.

Muhammad's next court appearance is expected on Feb. 20, when post-trial motions are scheduled in Manassas, Virginia. Formal sentencing is set for March 10.

The murder trial of Muhammad's young traveling companion, Lee Malvo, was moved from the suburban Virginia city of Fairfax to the city of Chesapeake, near the North Carolina border. Malvo, who was 17 when the shootings occurred, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[zygoat]

Throw his lawyers in the cell with him. In fact, let the bastards get strapped down with him and follow the poor mistreated punk right to allah, or whomever else may be waiting.

[BasketballAsAKid]

I hope some liberal judge gives him what he wants, so that the spotlight shines on judicial overreach.

In the same way it was a good think that Janet Jackson stripped so that people focused on the raunchiness that was already there, but ignored.

[angkor]

Several weeks ago AG Bob Horan said he was going to prosecute second cases against both murderers to reduce the chance of any successful appeal.

[weegee]

Is he blaming the sniper attacks on the teen who was with him? There is no doubt that they were a series of attacks.

[JimSEA]

I am a firm believer that Justice delayed is Justice denied. Both Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo should have been executed by now.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

The attorneys argued that the guilty verdict should either be overturned or a new trial granted to Muhammad. They also wrote that the death penalty was inappropriate in this case.

One day a coyote came upon a mountain lion licking a pile of dung. "What on earth are you doing?" the coyote asked in amazement. The mountain lion looked up dolefully. "I ate a lawyer yesterday, and I'm still trying to get the taste out of my mouth."

[zygoat]

LOL! Good one!

[supercat]

In legal papers filed on Monday, Muhammad's lawyers maintained that the jury could not separate the facts of the case from the inflammatory evidence presented at trial, including family photos of sniper victims, audio recordings of frantic calls for help and graphic testimony from medical examiners.

Although I personally have no doubt of the guilt of these convicted murderers, I think the lawyer does make a good point: oftentimes in murder trials, prosecutors tend to introduce evidence which is highly inflamatory but in fact has no bearing on the defendant's guilt. Even if the police got the right guys in this case, allowing prosecutors to use such tactics in general will increase the number of innocent people wrongfully convicted.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, you're correct about that. But consider this argument by his lawyers:

"Jurors are only humans with the emotions and sensitivities of ordinary people, not trained in the law, who were given the task of making factual determinations of guilt and innocence in a backdrop of horror during the guilt phase of Muhammad's trial," the lawyers wrote.

This lawyer is a flaming @sshole -- because during his daily work he consistently relies on jurors to use their "emotions," "sensitivities," "lack of training in the law," etc. to reach a verdict that is favorable for his client in any given case. If this argument were a legitimate reason to overturn a conviction, then it should also be a legitimate reason to overturn an acquittal -- and 99% of the lawyers in this country would be out of business tomorrow.

F#ck him, and f#ck his client.

[Howlin]

In fact, let the bastards get strapped down with him

Ha! I have the very same vision of Scott Peterson and Mark Geragos!

[supercat]

This lawyer is a flaming @sshole -- because during his daily work he consistently relies on jurors to use their "emotions," "sensitivities," "lack of training in the law," etc. to reach a verdict that is favorable for his client in any given case. If this argument were a legitimate reason to overturn a conviction, then it should also be a legitimate reason to overturn an acquittal -- and 99% of the lawyers in this country would be out of business tomorrow.

I don't disagree with you, but I think prosecutors do need to be reigned in sometimes. The goal shouldn't be just to score convictions, but to score convictions of the right people. And prosecutors who use inflamatory evidence which doesn't relate to the guilt of the particular person accused sometimes seem to lose sight of that.