WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court yesterday abolished the death penalty for juveniles, ruling that it is excessive and cruel to execute a person who was younger than 18 when the crime was committed.

Juveniles are less mature than adults and, no matter how heinous their crimes, they are not among "the worst offenders" who deserve to die, the 5-4 majority said.

Three years ago, the court struck down the death penalty for mentally retarded criminals; the logic of that ruling called for a similar ban on capital punishment for juvenile offenders, the court said.

Yesterday's decision means that 72 convicted murderers on death row in 12 states will be resentenced.

The Constitution bars the use of "cruel-and-unusual punishments," and the majority opinion — quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 — said this rule must be judged by "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." By that standard, executing killers who were juveniles when they committed their crimes has become rare, outmoded and unwarranted, the majority said.

Only Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia have executed juveniles in the past decade. Outside the United States, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, Congo and China have executed juvenile offenders since 1990, the court said, but since have disavowed the practice.

"The stark reality is that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty," he said. "While not controlling our outcome, [it] does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."

That comment drew an especially strong rebuke from Justice Antonin Scalia, whose dissent accused the majority of changing the Constitution to fit its own shifting views of what is proper. He also insisted that international opinion should play no role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Scalia said the majority had made a "mockery" of the court's adherence to tradition and precedent. Just 15 years ago, the justices banned executions of juveniles younger than 16 but allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to face ultimate punishment.

"The court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to evolving standards of decency," Scalia said. "It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists ... "

Scalia pointed out that in 1989, 14 of the nation's 38 states allowing the death penalty exempted defendants younger than 18, but only four more states have adopted such bans since then. "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death-penalty states can constitute a national consensus," he wrote.

"The court proclaims itself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards — and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures," Scalia said. "I do not believe that the meaning of our [Constitution] should be determined by the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners."

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined Kennedy's opinion. They noted that in nearly every state, 18 is the minimum age for voting, serving on juries and obtaining a marriage license without a parent's permission.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's dissent.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's usual swing vote, dissented separately. She said she agreed with Kennedy that the court should look to "evolving standards of decency," but she disagreed that there was a "national consensus" against executing young killers.

Since 1976, when the court upheld a new generation of capital-punishment laws, the justices have been considering limits on the imposition of such sentences.

In 1977, the court abolished the death penalty for rape and other crimes short of murder. Eleven years later, it ruled capital punishment could not be imposed on anyone 15 or younger, although in 1989 it upheld death sentences for 16- and 17-year-olds.

Since then, 20 states have permitted prosecutors to seek the death penalty for murderers younger than 18 at the time their crime was committed. Eighteen states authorize the death penalty but have set a minimum age of 18. Congress set the same minimum when it restored the federal death penalty.

Yesterday's ruling was greeted with hearty praise from the nation's anti-death-penalty organizations and from such diverse groups as the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the European Union. All had filed briefs in support of Christopher Simmons, a Missouri inmate who, at 17, kidnapped a woman from her home, bound her to a chair and tossed her off a bridge into a river.

However, death-penalty advocates were strongly critical. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a coalition of law-enforcement professionals, called the decision "an abomination of justice."

When Kennedy began reading his opinion yesterday, he described in detail the murder perpetrated by Simmons. In 1993, he and two younger accomplices broke into a neighbor's home, intending to burglarize it.

When the neighbor, Shirley Crook, awoke and recognized him, Simmons tied her up, put duct tape over her eyes and mouth, put her in the back of a minivan and threw her off a railroad bridge south of St. Louis. She drowned in the waters below.

Simmons bragged about the crime and was arrested and charged with kidnapping and capital murder. The jury sentenced him to die.

Two years ago, Missouri's highest court overturned that sentence because of his age at the time of the crime, forcing the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Kennedy concluded that even the "cold-blooded nature" of a crime like this does not call for an execution. "When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the basic liberties, but [it] cannot extinguish his life."

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

King County prosecutors cut a deal with cop-killer Charles Champion yesterday that spared his life and underscored the increasing difficulty in seeking and imposing the death penalty in Washington.

After several weeks of negotiations, King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng agreed to reduce Champion's aggravated-murder charge for shooting to death Des Moines Officer Steven Underwood. In exchange for pleading guilty to the lesser charge of first-degree murder, Champion agreed yesterday to serve a 26- to 34-year prison sentence.

This was the second high-profile murder case in as many years in which Maleng took the death penalty off the table to help secure a conviction. The first was Green River killer Gary Ridgway, who pleaded guilty a year ago in exchange for life in prison. And that came after Maleng pledged that he "will not bargain with the death penalty."

Yesterday Maleng denied that Ridgway's plea deal influenced his decision in the Champion case. But Champion's attorneys -- as have death penalty opponents around the state -- strenuously argued that their client should not be eligible for state execution if Ridgway, who killed 48 women, wasn't.

No high court judge has yet ruled on whether Ridgway's plea should mean other murderers should not face execution.

The debate is growing louder and has made prosecutors generally more skittish about asking for the death penalty, juries more reluctant to impose it and judges more likely to overturn any such convictions, legal observers note.

"There certainly are going to be requests for the death penalty, but there's going to be a diminishing number of requests," said John Junker, a professor of criminal law at the University of Washington.

Champion, 22, could face as few as 22 years in prison if given credit for time already served and for good behavior, said Champion's attorney Jackie Walsh.

The courtroom yesterday was packed. Champion stood quietly before King County Superior Court Judge Anthony Wartnik as deputy prosecutor Nelson Lee read the terms of the plea.

On four different occasions, Champion paused for several seconds before telling Wartnik that he agreed to the deal.

Members of the Champion and Underwood families cried during the court hearing.

Underwood, 33, was killed early on March 7, 2001, after stopping along Pacific Highway South to question a group of teenagers. Within two minutes, witnesses told police, they saw Champion take out a gun and fire several rapid shots.

Underwood, who had a wife and young son, apparently didn't have time to respond to the assault; his service pistol hadn't been drawn, police said. He was rushed to Harborview Medical Center and died an hour later of multiple gunshot wounds.

Prosecutors said Champion had been avoiding arrest on two outstanding warrants. The case has been delayed several times, prompting complaints from prosecutors and Underwood's family. It took more than 3 1/2 years to reach the deal penned yesterday -- and has cost taxpayers more than $1 million to pursue.

Wartnik will sentence Champion on Jan. 5.

Maleng said at a news conference that "the plea we accepted today has brought accountability and finality to the case, and was in the best interests of public safety."

But he conceded that the deal was "the imperfect result of an imperfect justice system."

Because of squabbling among the half-dozen defense attorneys who at times worked on the case, Maleng maintained, the case dragged on far longer than it should have. During that time, he said, the evidence needed to convict Champion began to "degrade."

Specifically, two of the three witnesses to the crime -- Champion's younger brother, Lonya, and a man named Antonio Perryman -- have subsequently been imprisoned on decade-long armed robbery stints, one King County source noted.

Champion's attorney said after the hearing that prosecutors accepted a deal in part because there's always been a question as to whether they could prove premeditation -- an element necessary to be convicted of aggravated murder.

Walsh added that "both families need to be praised for finding a middle ground."

It is not clear that the Underwood family found any middle ground.

"This case screams for justice, but justice has not been done," said Dick Underwood, the slain officer's father. "The court system has forced this unfair outcome by allowing endless delays and countless frivolous legal maneuvering by the defense."

The Underwood family, and other death penalty supporters, may in fact be on the losing side of the argument, legal experts said.

County prosecutors statewide still maintain discretion as to whether they should ask for the death penalty, Junker, the UW law professor, noted.

But for the past several years, and especially since the Ridgway deal, they have been much more cautious about when they ask for it.

King County prosecutors are not considering asking for death in other current murder cases, prosecutors say.

"There's a trend that we're seeing definitely in King County toward sentences other than death," said Mark Larranaga, director of the Washington Death Penalty Assistance Center.

Since the Ridgway deal, Larranaga said the only death penalty notices he was aware of had been filed by Pierce County prosecutors last month against two men charged in the February kidnapping and murder of a tool salesman earlier this year.

Not only do prosecutors appear more reluctant, but there also have been an increasing number of death penalty reversals.

Larranaga said there have been 18 death penalty overturns since the law was enacted in 1981.

And those reversals came before the Ridgway plea, Larranaga noted.

One case lawyers are watching closely is that of triple-murderer Dayva Cross. His lawyers argued in June to the state Supreme Court that the Ridgway deal made it imperative that they overturn the man's death sentence -- as well as the state's death penalty law. The court is expected to rule on the case soon.

It's clear which way Des Moines police Officer Bob Crane, Underwood's partner for more than six years, would come down on the Cross case.

The deal to scrap the death penalty for Champion, he said, was "aggravating. It makes you so angry."

When asked if the plea deals for Ridgway and Champion could mean the effective end of the death penalty in King County, Crane said, "I hope not. That's not what this system was designed to do."

Friday, November 5, 2004

By TRACY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/198305_deathpenalty05.html

The state Supreme Court threw out a death sentence yesterday for a man who raped and killed a 65-year-old Tacoma woman almost eight years ago, saying the shackles he was forced to wear in court could have influenced jurors.

In an 8-1 decision, justices upheld Cecil Davis' aggravated-murder conviction even though at least one juror spotted his concealed shackles, finding that there was "overwhelming evidence" that Davis killed Yoshiko Couch.

But they ruled that the leg restraints could have affected Davis' sentence because jurors are asked to consider how dangerous defendants are when deciding whether they should serve life in prison or be executed.

Shackles tell jurors a defendant is seen as dangerous and unmanageable, the court ruled in an earlier case.

Pierce County Prosecutor Gerald Horne must now decide whether to ask a new jury to sentence Davis to death or let him spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Deputy prosecutor John Hillman said he is disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision and "respectfully disagrees" with the idea that seeing Davis' shackles somehow swayed the juror.

The ruling was mixed news for Davis' attorneys, Catherine Chaney and Gil Levy.

"We're disappointed that the court didn't reverse the conviction, but highly delighted that they reversed the death sentence," Levy said. "We are very hopeful now that we will be able to save his life."

It's far from the first time that a defendant's leg chains have become an issue in a death penalty case. The death sentence of Charles Ben Finch was overturned on appeal because jurors saw him in restraints, but Finch -- who was convicted of killing a Snohomish County sheriff's deputy and another man in 1994 -- later committed suicide.

The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument by Richard Matthew Clark, who killed 7-year-old Roxanne Doll in Everett in 1995, but overturned his death sentence for other reasons.

Yesterday, the court said defendants shouldn't be shackled unless there is reason to believe they'll hurt someone or try to escape, though Davis had never caused any problems in court.

Couch's body was found Jan. 25, 1997, in the bathtub of her home. She had been raped, choked and suffocated with towels soaked in Goof Off, a toxic household solvent.

Her husband, who was partially paralyzed from a previous stroke, was still downstairs and didn't know what happened.

Evidence tying Davis to the murder included the food, beer and cigarettes he had apparently stolen from Couch's house, along with the traces of cleanser and blood on his shoes.

In Davis' trial, a judge ordered that Davis be restrained in court after prosecutors and a jail supervisor mentioned a jail policy to shackle inmates facing serious charges. The judge had attorneys put a wall of boxes, briefcases and garbage cans under the table where Davis sat to keep jurors from seeing the chain on his ankles.

But one juror later said he caught a glimpse of "a shiny device" around Davis' ankles during the "guilt phase" -- when jurors determine guilt or innocence -- in Davis' trial.

Yesterday, in the opinion written by Justice Faith Ireland, the court ruled that the shackles could have affected the jury's later decision in sentencing Davis.

In his dissent, Justice Richard Sanders said Davis should also get a new trial to determine his guilt or innocence in the crime, not just to decide his sentence.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, 22 October 2004

Pierce County prosecutors will seek the death penalty for two men charged in the kidnapping and murder of a tool salesman earlier this year.

County Prosecutor Gerald Horne announced his decision yesterday, saying he was swayed by the alleged acts of the two men, Jeremy Hosford, 25, and William Schorr, 29, during and after the crime.

The pair were arrested in February and charged with aggravated first-degree murder for the death of Robert Shapel, 55. Shapel was a long-time Snap-On Tools salesman who drove a van loaded with tools.

Investigators say the men flagged down Shapel Feb. 24 on the pretense that they needed a replacement for a broken tool. Instead, authorities say, they robbed Shapel at gunpoint, handcuffed him, wrapped his head in duct tape and plastic and left him to suffocate in a portable toilet. Horne said that amounted to torture.

The pair also are accused of stealing Shapel's tools and cash, then burning the van. They later contacted his wife, pretending he was alive and threatening to hurt him if she didn't give them the code numbers to his credit cards.

Prosecutor will again seek killer's execution

EVERETT -- Snohomish County prosecutors say they will try again to obtain a death sentence for a man convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing a 7-year-old girl in 1997.

Prosecutor Janice Ellis said Monday she had informed lawyers for Richard Matthew Clark that her office would proceed with a death-penalty trial before a newly chosen jury May 12, 2005.

She rejected defense claims of mitigating factors in the stabbing death of Roxanne Doll of Everett, the daughter of a friend of Clark's, including an assertion that "he is of marginal intelligence."

"Your materials do not support the conclusion," Ellis wrote in a letter to the defense Friday.

Clark was convicted of aggravated first-degree murder and sentenced to die in 1997, two years after the killing, but in 2001 the state Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, ruling that the jury should not have been told the details of his earlier conviction for unlawful imprisonment.

Clark's conviction was upheld, so if he is not executed he faces a mandatory life prison term.

Defense lawyer Jeffrey Ellis, no relation to the prosecutor, said the prosecutor violated an agreement with the reference to Clark's intelligence in her publicly released letter on the decision to seek another death-penalty trial.