 |
| | | | |
American Constitutional Law
, Volume Two
Gregg Ivers, American University
| | |
| | Case Problems
Chapter Nine: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Is Death Different?
| The Case |
Early one morning, William and Jane Weaver were found stabbed to death in their bedroom, located on the ground floor of their townhouse. Ms. Weaver received a total of 16 different stab wounds; Mr. Weaver received five, two of which went directly into the heart. Separate police and medical examinations concluded that the assault on Ms. Weaver was premeditated and deliberate. The autopsy revealed no evidence of resistance on her part. The police lifted fingerprints from the headboard of the bed that matched the knife used to kill the couple. In Ms. Weaver's case, the attacker braced himself with one hand while he stabbed her with the other. The police also determined that Mr. Weaver, when he awoke, attempted to stop the attacker. His stab wounds came in self-defense, as no evidence was found that the attacker intended to kill Mr. Weaver or that he even wanted to.
After two weeks of investigation, the police arrested a 21-year-old college student, Ernie Hansen. The police began to center their investigation on Ernie after they discovered that the previous occupants of the townhouse were his parents. Hansen's father was one of the city's most prominent divorce attorneys. The police believed that perhaps a former adversary had arranged to have Hansen's father murdered, but in a case of mistaken identity had killed the Weavers instead. After talking with several people whose former spouses had been represented by Hansen's father, the police found nothing to support this theory. But in looking into the background of Hansen's family, the police discovered that Ernie had been in and out of alcohol and drug rehabilitation since he was 16. In talking with several acquaintances, the police discovered that Ernie had gone on several "benders" since entering rehab. The police theorized that Ernie, during a drinking and trashing spree, might have broken into the Weavers' townhouse, thinking that he still lived there. But police were baffled as to why someone would kill the Weavers. Nothing was taken and nothing was disturbed outside of the bedroom. Interviews with family, friends and business associates of the Weavers turned up no enemies with a death wish. The only item the police found out of place was the kitchen knife used to kill the Weavers. And why would the attacker only go after Ms. Weaver?
The police arrested Ernie Hansen after fingerprints were found to match those on the murder weapon and the headboard of the Weavers' bed. During subsequent questioning, Hansen could recall the sequence of events on the night the Weavers were murdered. He remembered being out with a couple of friends; he admitted that he had been binge drinking; and he remembered leaving his friends at around 1:30 a.m. (medical examination had placed the Weavers time of death between 1:45 and 2:15 a.m.), but said from that point on he didn't remember anything until he awoke the next morning in his parents' home. Psychiatric examinations by the defense and district attorney's office reached the same conclusion: that Ernie genuinely could not remember what happened and had no idea why he had returned to his former home. Another doctor who specialized in substance abuse said that such "blackouts" were common among alcoholics who go on binges. When the defense offered a plea to the prosecutors of not guilty by reason of insanity, the district attorney refused. She demanded that Ernie undergo a hypnotic examination to see if his subconscious memory could be awakened. The defense agreed, but only on the condition that whatever statements he made during the examination could not be admitted into evidence, but only establish intent and state of mind.
Under hypnosis, Ernie recounted extensive child abuse during his pre-adolescent years by his mother. During one especially poignant moment, Ernie curled up in fear as he began to describe the time his mother burned him with a cigarette after he had spilled a drink on the rug. When Ernie ran from her, she chased him into the kitchen, where she picked up a knife and moved towards him. At that moment, Ernie's father came in the door and saved him. The defense claimed that Ernie's statement revealed that, in returning to his former home and attacking only Ms. Weaver, he was acting out repressed anger towards his mother. Ernie clearly did not understand what he was doing and thus would enter a plea of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. The district attorney reached the opposite conclusion -- that Ernie's ability to recall the events that led to the murder disclosed that he not only knew what he was doing, but why he did it. The district attorney rejected the plea offer of the defense and proceeded with two counts of first-degree murder.
During the trial, Ms. Hansen provided detailed and painful testimony about her abuse of Ernie. She admitted to having an alcohol problem, and that it was the events that Ernie described under hypnosis that led her to seek medical and psychiatric help. She testified that since then she had never struck or abused her son. Mr. Hansen corroborated his wife's testimony, and also told the court that he had served as his son's protector during the troubled portion of the relationship between his wife and son. Mr. Hansen's testimony was consistent with statements the police had taken during the investigation. Everyone the police interviewed, from Ernie's friends to friends of his parents, said that Ernie and his father had always enjoyed a close and loving relationship.
During closing arguments, Ernie's attorney told the jury there was no way it could conclude that his client could have known of what he was doing. His client was not a murderer, but an extremely sick and troubled individual who needed intense psychiatric treatment. The district attorney, while acknowledging that Ernie and his mother had had a troubled relationship, argued that it did not justify the murder of two innocent people. And if Ernie really did believe that he was stabbing the woman who once almost killed him as an act of self-defense, it did not explain why he killed Mr. Weaver, the man he thought was his father. The punishment for first degree murder is either life in prison or, if the circumstances are especially aggravating, the death penalty.
Questions
1. Is the death penalty an appropriate punishment in each case?
2. Suppose the jury convicts the defendant on one or both counts. If you represented the defendant, do you believe this is a good case in which to argue for the unconstitutionality of the death penalty? Does the "cause" of the crime matter?
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
