Court reviews judge-imposed death penalties

ATLANTA JOURNAL ^ | 4/22/02 | Larry Lipman

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Timothy Stuart Ring sits on Arizona's death row, convicted of murdering an armored car driver. His death penalty case, scheduled to be heard day by the U.S. Supreme Court, could affect nearly 800 death row inmates in nine states. Depending on how the court rules, some or all of those inmates could have their sentences reduced to life in prison, and some could be eligible for parole.

At issue is the question of whether judges can impose the death sentence without a recommendation from a jury.

Arizona is one of five states --- plus Montana, Nebraska, Colorado and Idaho --- in which a judge or panel of judges can impose a death sentence without a jury's involvement after a murder conviction. In four other states --- Alabama, Delaware, Florida and Indiana --- juries recommend a sentence, but a judge makes the final decision.

The case already has had an affect on executions. Despite the differences in the Arizona and Florida death penalty statutes, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the executions of two Florida murderers and Gov. Jeb Bush postponed the execution of a third killer. Ring, a former New Hampshire policeman, had worked in Arizona as a part-time armored car driver and as a prison guard. Court documents indicate he was a "championship caliber marksman."

On Nov. 28, 1994, John Magoch was sitting inside an unmarked Wells Fargo armored van outside a department store in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, when he was shot in the head by a rifle bullet. The van was later found in a church parking lot. Magoch's body was in the van, but about $563,000 was missing.

A few months later, police arrested Ring, William Ferguson, a former Phoenix police officer, and James "Yoda" Greenham, another corrections officer. Ring was convicted of felony murder for killing Magoch during a robbery. Greenham was sentenced to 27 years in prison, and Ferguson got 16 years.

Greenham testified before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Martin during the sentencing phase that Ring had planned the heist, fired the fatal rifle shot and "subsequently asked to be congratulated on his shot."

Martin determined that Ring had acted in a "heinous and depraved" manner and killed for financial gain. He concluded that those aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factor that Ring had a relatively clean record. In October 1997, Martin sentenced Ring to death. Two years later, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down Martin's finding that the murder was "heinous and depraved," but allowed the death sentence to stand, finding that "this murder was not the result of sudden impulse or loss of control nor a robbery gone bad, but a planned, ruthless robbery and killing."

Death penalty cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are not about a defendant's guilt or innocence, but about constitutional questions. In this case, the issue is whether two Supreme Court rulings conflict, and if so, what effect that has on death sentences.

In 1990, in a case known as Walton v. Arizona, the high court upheld the Arizona law that said a judge alone must determine whether the facts surrounding a murder warranted the death penalty. But by a 5-4 vote in 2000, the justices overturned New Jersey's hate crime law because it allowed judges to determine whether a criminal case was motivated by prejudice, which elevated it to a hate crime with a longer sentence. The court declared --- in Apprendi v. New Jersey --- that allowing a judge to determine the facts surrounding motive violated the defendant's right to a jury trial and due process.

Ring's attorneys argue in court filings that the Apprendi decision invalidates the Walton ruling. Their argument is that if a judge can't make a determination without a jury on facts that would raise an assault and battery sentence from 10 years to 12 years, as in the Apprendi case, he shouldn't be able to increase a murderer's sentence from life in prison to death without a jury's recommendation.

[HungarianGypsy]

I have sooo much I want to say about this case. The extra testimony would not have gotten Ring off. Any jury would have imposed the same sentence the judge did. Also, all this concern about his rights! Timothy Ring never considered the rights of John Magoch, or the rights of John's family. He stole an irreplaceable life for his greed. Tim Ring is not only a murderer, but has been a constant liar. He states things one way, then turns around and says, "No. It's this way." Oh, well! These are just the ramblings of a hormonal and very upset pregnant woman.

[HungarianGypsy]

Too bad you missed A&E's American Justice yesterday. It was a rerun, but it runs down through a lot of your questions. Most, which have been answered. Perhaps you can contact them.