(AZL was right, way back when, about a bullet being dodged in the first penalty phase of s trial, when JM appeared to suggest to the jury that LWOP might leave open the possibility of the being given parole after 25 years. But that aside
..)
A Juan Martinez prosecuted death penalty verdict just overturned by the Supreme Court (6-2); at issue, jury instructions about possibility of parole.
Jurors deciding whether to sentence someone to death are entitled to be told that in Arizona the only alternative is life behind bars.
Shawn P. Lynch v. State of Arizona
AZ Supreme Court:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1528216.html
US Supreme Court:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-8366.html
---------------------------------------------------------
THE CASE.
Lynch and Michael Sehwani met James Panzarella in March 2001 at a Scottsdale bar. All three went to Panzarella's residence early the next morning. The victim's credit cards were used during the next two days. Panzarella was eventually found in his home tied to a chair with his throat slit.
Police also found credit card receipt from purchases made that morning at a supermarket and convenience store. Lynch and Sehwani were arrested later that day. Sehwani had Panzarella's credit cards and checks in his wallet. And in the truck and motel room he and Lynch were using they found the keys to Panzarella's car, a pistol belonging to the victim and a sweater with Panzarella's blood on it. Blood on Lynch's shoes matched the victim's DNA.
TRIAL
Lynch was convicted in 2005 on charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and burglary.
At sentencing,
the prosecution argued that Lynchs potential for danger in the future warranted the death penalty, according to the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling.
Lynchs attorney tried to argue that he was ineligible for parole and could not, therefore, pose a danger upon release.
But the judge in his case noted the possibility of release after 25 years, and denied Lynchs request.
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld that decision in the most recent of Lynchs two appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that violated the precedent it set in a 1994 case, when it ruled that defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole.
SUPREME COURT RULING
Six of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said it was a mistake for a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to block the defense attorney for Shawn Patrick Lynch from telling jurors that if they did not sentence him to death that he would be sentenced to life behind bars, with no possibility of parole. Denied that information, the jurors sentenced Lynch to death.
The majority of SC justices conceded that there was a chance Lynch could be released after 25 years. But the justices said that was not enough of a possibility to let jurors think if they did not sentenced Lynch to death that he might be released.
The majority (rejected) arguments by prosecutors that a future legislature could alter the laws and once again make parole an option. The justices said that would effectively undermine the whole precedent the high court set decades ago when they first concluded that jurors need to know what are -- and are not -- the options for a judge in deciding whether to impose the death penalty.
. Looks like it's going to be a long while longer.
