The life-or-death choice was in Decide Kelly Wayne Parker’s palms.
Twelve jurors had discovered Marvin Rice responsible of murdering his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend. However they may not unanimously agree on whether or not he ought to stay or die. Missouri is considered one of two states the place a choose will get the ultimate say when jurors can’t agree on the punishment — even once they vote 11 to 1 for all times, as that they had in Rice’s case.
“It was a really lonely and daunting place to be in,” Parker instructed The Marshall Mission – St. Louis.
On Oct. 6, 2017, he addressed the courtroom.
“I’m very nicely conscious of the seriousness of my choice and the way it impacts all of you and I perceive that a part of this viewers goes to be very upset with my choice, somehow,” mentioned Parker, in keeping with courtroom transcripts, in the one loss of life penalty case in his almost 20-year profession on the bench.
He then sentenced Rice to loss of life.
“It was a really somber second,” Parker, now a protection legal professional in south-central Missouri, mentioned not too long ago.
Defendants had been beforehand sentenced to life with out parole when Missouri jurors deadlocked in a capital case. That’s the default most states with the loss of life penalty use at this time. A number of conduct a brand new penalty part. Since Missouri modified its legislation in 1984, Rice is considered one of at the very least 18 individuals who have been sentenced to loss of life by a choose. 4 of them have been executed.
Two of the eight individuals remaining on loss of life row within the state had been sentenced by judges.
Missouri is an outlier in permitting judges to impose loss of life. Some say judges have a greater authorized understanding of the loss of life penalty than juries and argue that some crimes are so heinous that loss of life is suitable even when a jury isn’t unanimous. Opponents say the method undermines the significance of juries and that one individual mustn’t determine life or loss of life. In addition they say the best way Missouri’s statute is written is unconstitutional.
“It is a matter that continues to be a difficulty,” mentioned Robert Dunham, an legal professional and director of the Dying Penalty Coverage Mission.
Allowing judges to impose loss of life is “terribly unfair and it skews the method,” he mentioned. There’s additionally a racial part in the case of the loss of life penalty in Missouri, he continued. Of the 18 individuals sentenced by judges, 11 — or 61% — had been Black. Forty-one % of all of the defendants despatched to loss of life row within the state had been Black, in keeping with information from the Dying Penalty Data Middle. That’s dramatically disproportionate in a state the place 11.7% of the inhabitants is Black, in keeping with U.S. Census information.
Rice was later resentenced to life with out parole on account of different violations in his case, together with feedback from the prosecution that infringed on Rice’s Fifth Modification rights referencing his choice to not testify.
Throughout a name from Potosi Correctional Middle, about 70 miles south of St. Louis, Rice mentioned he has all the time been a proponent of the loss of life penalty, and stays so.
“However I consider it ought to solely be used when a jury of 12 can unanimously determine to make use of it,” he mentioned. “I believe that it’s such a harsh penalty that it ought to take that to make use of it.”
From loss of life row to life
The jury in Joseph Whitfield’s 1994 trial in St. Louis additionally voted 11 to 1 for all times in jail with out parole.
Throughout the sentencing listening to, Whitfield’s attorneys mentioned they didn’t suppose the courtroom was finishing up the desire of the neighborhood or the jury by giving him loss of life. Former Circuit Decide Robert Dierker mentioned he believed the loss of life penalty statute was created to discourage individuals from crime and that retribution additionally performs a job, in keeping with courtroom transcripts.
“In that state of affairs, choose or jury, that’s not a straightforward name,” Dierker instructed The Marshall Mission – St. Louis.
Whitfield spent almost a decade on loss of life row till 2003, when the Missouri Supreme Court docket resentenced him to life with out parole.
“I definitely didn’t really feel in any respect distressed that he didn’t find yourself on the gurney,” Dierker mentioned.
Whitfield’s life was spared after the U.S. Supreme Court docket’s landmark choice in Ring v. Arizona, which dominated in 2002 that solely a jury can determine on information essential to impose the loss of life penalty. In Whitfield’s case, the Missouri Supreme Court docket mentioned jurors should first agree on two classes of information to impose loss of life: the presence of an aggravating circumstance and that it outweighs any mitigating elements. These steps would proceed to be a supply of authorized disputes in life-or-death selections for years to return.
Within the third and closing step, the so-called mercy step, jurors determine in the event that they nonetheless wish to impose loss of life. That may be carried out by jurors or, if they can’t agree, a choose.
In a number of Missouri instances the place a choose had been the decider, it wasn’t clear the place jurors hit a roadblock within the course of or what aggravators and mitigators that they had mentioned.
Eleven of the 18 judge-imposed loss of life sentences have been modified to life. Most had been a cascading consequence of Ring and Missouri’s subsequent choice for Whitfield, who died in jail on Might 26 at age 85, in keeping with the Missouri Division of Corrections.
The U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated in Ring v. Arizona in 2002 that solely a jury can determine on information essential to impose the loss of life penalty. The choice led the Missouri Supreme Court docket to overturn a number of judge-imposed loss of life sentences.
Amongst them was Deandra Buchanan. In March 2002, he was discovered responsible of fatally capturing his aunt, girlfriend and stepfather. The jury couldn’t agree on a sentence.
The choose handed down loss of life.
He was resentenced to life with out parole by the Missouri Supreme Court docket within the wake of the Ring choice. He was not current when the courtroom revisited his case. In September 2024, public defender Tyler Coyle filed a movement arguing Buchanan’s life sentence was invalid as a result of he had a proper to be in courtroom.
A choose denied the movement on June 16. Coyle mentioned he’ll enchantment.
A latest execution
Amber McLaughlin was sentenced to loss of life by St. Louis County Circuit Decide Steven Goldman in November 2006. McLaughlin grew to become the primary overtly transgender individual to be executed within the U.S. when she died by deadly injection on Jan. 3, 2023.
Earlier than changing into a choose, Goldman — then a prosecutor — helped devise the legislation that gave judges the facility to impose loss of life sentences.
Goldman, who was appointed as a choose in 1988 and retired in 2016, mentioned he believes the result in McLaughlin’s case was simply.
“It’s unhappy to should do the loss of life penalty, however it’s important to decide instances which can be the worst type of instances and that was one of many worst type of instances,” he mentioned, noting that McLaughlin had raped and repeatedly stabbed an ex-girlfriend to loss of life in 2003.
Different states have moved to restrict judicial loss of life sentences. In a 2016 choice from the Supreme Court docket of Delaware, the justices mentioned the state’s capital punishment statute was unconstitutional as a result of it allowed judges to make findings on the annoying circumstances and weigh these towards mitigators. The ruling ended the loss of life penalty in Delaware. Solely Missouri and Indiana proceed to allow a choose to impose loss of life when a jury is hung. Indiana is much less energetic in the case of capital punishment, having executed 15 individuals since 2000. Missouri has executed 60, in keeping with information from the Dying Penalty Data Middle.
Goldman mentioned judges have extra familiarity with the loss of life penalty.
“I believe judges are nicely certified to do it, most likely extra so than juries in that regard,” he mentioned.
Retired Missouri Supreme Court docket Chief Justice Michael Wolff mentioned the best to a jury trial is key.
“Particularly in loss of life penalty instances, however in each case that jurors hear, the jury is, amongst different issues, a conscience of the neighborhood,” Wolff mentioned.
As McLaughlin’s execution date approached, Wolff and 6 retired circuit judges wrote to then-Gov. Mike Parson, urging him to commute McLaughlin’s sentence to life with out parole. They mentioned her sentence had been reversed in 2016 as a result of her trial legal professional did not current details about her psychological well being. That mitigating proof may have tipped the scales when the jury couldn’t agree. The eighth Circuit Court docket of Appeals later overturned the 2016 choice.
Wolff and the opposite judges additionally mentioned Missouri’s legislation is flawed. The statute says when jurors can’t agree, a choose undertakes the three-step process.
“Everyone acknowledges that may be unconstitutional,” mentioned Joseph Welling, an legal professional and Saint Louis College professor. That’s as a result of the Ring choice mentioned juries — not judges — decide information.
When Goldman sentenced McLaughlin, he acknowledged there have been conflicting guidelines and mentioned it wasn’t clear what mitigating circumstances had been thought of by the jury, in keeping with courtroom transcripts.
Larry Komp, a federal public defender who represented McLaughlin in her appeals, mentioned he didn’t suppose the courtroom’s actions had been constitutional.
“However I assume it’s in Missouri,” he mentioned.
The Missouri Supreme Court docket itself has famous the significance of juries in loss of life penalty instances. In denying a keep for Kevin Johnson earlier than he was executed in 2022, the courtroom emphasised that the jury had discovered the aggravators, weighed them and selected loss of life.
If officers genuinely believed in juries, Komp mentioned, “Amber wouldn’t have been executed.”
Ready on loss of life row
Missouri has cleared a lot of its loss of life row, primarily by way of a gradual stream of executions that picked up because the pandemic waned. The state carried out 4 executions in 2023 and one other 4 in 2024. Craig Wooden, 57, and Lance Shockley, 48, are two of the eight individuals remaining. Each had been sentenced by judges.
The Missouri Supreme Court docket not too long ago scheduled Shockley’s execution for Oct. 14.
Throughout an enchantment in Wooden’s case, the Missouri Supreme Court docket backtracked on the three-step course of juries undergo. Now, a jury solely has to unanimously agree on the presence of an aggravator.
A number of attorneys mentioned they doubt questions concerning the course of authorizing judge-imposed loss of life sentences could be taken up by the courts once more. That leaves it as much as the Missouri Legislature.
Up to now eight years, at the very least 14 items of laws had been drafted to repeal the legislation permitting judges to impose the loss of life penalty. Most had been sponsored by Republicans.
One other invoice to repeal the legislation bought a listening to this yr within the Senate, the place it was debated for over 90 minutes. It was sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican.
“It’s my agency perception that one individual within the state of Missouri mustn’t maintain the facility of the state to kill any person,” she mentioned on the Senate ground.
She and Republican Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer sparred over the measure.
“In case your invoice had been to move and you’ve got a case the place 12 jurors have unanimously agreed that any person dedicated first-degree homicide after which within the sentencing part they vote 11 to 1, not would the choose be capable to impose the loss of life penalty in that circumstance,” Luetkemeyer mentioned.
“Similar to proper now below present legislation, if it had been 1 to 11 and one individual was voting to impose the loss of life penalty and 11 voted no, the choose may impose the loss of life penalty,” she responded. “So that is about saying there must be certainty amongst a jury of your friends as to what the result must be.”
The invoice died.
