We consider the circumstances in which an invalidated sentencing factor will render a death sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the jury's weighing process....
...due process requires a defendant's death sentence to be set aside if the reason for the invalidity of the eligibility factor is that it ... attache[s] the "aggravating" label to factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process....
18 U.S.C. § 1201 doesn't define "kidnapping resulting in death" as an offense. Someone convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 would be convicted of "kidnapping". There is no crime of "kidnapping resulting in death".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1201
If someone is convicted under that section of law they "shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment."
Now it seems to me that, once the individual is convicted of kidnapping, it would be necessary to prove at sentencing that they killed the kidnapped person during the commision of their crime for them to get the death penalty. The death of the kidnapped person plays ONLY into the sentencing - not the original crime charged.
The conviction was for kidnapping, the additional aggravating factor was the death of the kidnapped person.
You also ignored another portion of Brown v. Sanders decision that appears to invalidate your own claim here.
"Since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (per curiam), we have required States to limit the class of murderers to which the death penalty may be applied. This narrowing requirement is usually met when the trier of fact finds at least one statutorily defined eligibility factor at either the guilt or penalty phase.sometimes identical to the eligibility factors) that are to be weighed against mitigating considerations. The issue in the line of cases we confront here is what happens when the sentencer imposes the death penalty after at least one valid eligibility factor has been found, but under a scheme in which an eligibility factor or a specified aggravating factor is later held to be invalid."
(Emphasis mine...)
It appears that the USSC recognizes that there are occassions where the eligibility and aggravating factors are one in the same.
fishin wrote:18 U.S.C. § 1201 doesn't define "kidnapping resulting in death" as an offense. Someone convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 would be convicted of "kidnapping". There is no crime of "kidnapping resulting in death".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1201
If someone is convicted under that section of law they "shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment."
18 U.S.C. § 1201 clearly and unambiguously defines two kidnapping offenses. The lesser crime is kidnapping. The greater (aggravated) crime is kidnapping resulting in death.
fishin wrote:You also ignored another portion of Brown v. Sanders decision that appears to invalidate your own claim here.
I didn't ignore any portion of the cited case. I copied and pasted the relevant portion of the case wherein the court told us the circumstances in which an invalidated sentencing factor will render a death sentence unconstitutional.
WAIT A MINUTE! The defendant was already convicted of kidnapping resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The conviction on the underlying offense cannot serve as an aggravating factor. The conviction on the underlying offense means that the court must impose a life sentence--but the court cannot impose a death sentence unless an additional element (the existence of one or more aggravating factors) is proved and a jury conducts a weighing process and finds that aggravating factors are sufficient to justify the death penalty.
Not surprising, the jury found the existence of this first "aggravating factor" beyond a reasonable doubt--and why not? The jury had already convicted him of the offense. This finding of an improper aggravating factor TAINTS the jury's deliberations in the death penalty phase and how can one claim this to be harmless error when a man's life is at stake?
We consider the circumstances in which an invalidated sentencing factor will render a death sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the jury's weighing process....
...due process requires a defendant's death sentence to be set aside if the reason for the invalidity of the eligibility factor is that it ... attache[s] the "aggravating" label to factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process....
(I still can't find a link to the jury directions you claim to have read so if you have one I'd appreciate you posting it.)
Instruction No. 4
KIDNAPPING RESULTING IN DEATH - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The offense of kidnapping resulting in death as charged in the Indictment has four essential elements, which are:
One: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., knowingly acting contrary to law, kidnapped, seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, abducted or otherwise carried away Dru Katrina Sjodin;
Two: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. held Dru Katrina Sjodin for some purpose or benefit;
Three: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully transported Dru Katrina Sjodin in interstate commerce while she was so kidnapped, seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, abducted or otherwise carried away; and
Four: the death of Dru Katrina Sjodin resulted from the conduct.
For you to find Mr. Rodriguez guilty of this offense, the government must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise you must find him not guilty.
The first statutory aggravating factor alleged by the government is that the defendant caused the death of Dru Sjodin during the commission of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnapping).
II. SECTION TWO
STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS
1. Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the United States has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., caused Dru Katrina Sjodin's death during the commission of the offense of kidnapping by the defendant?
YES _____ NO _____
For something that, as you say, is "clearly and unambiguously" defined, it doesn't appear to be there at all. I posted the link to the section of law you referenced. There is NO mention of aggravated kidnapping at all (as there are in many state statutes). There is ONE offense listed - kidnapping.
The death of the kidnapping victim is not an element of aggravation, it is an essential element of the crime that the prosecution had to prove in order to move to the sentencing phase, where the only options are life imprisonment or the death penalty. Had the government not proven the death, it would not have been able to seek the death penalty at the sentencing phase. So counting the death of the victim as an aggravating factor in the sentencing phase is tantamount to saying that the defendant should be punished more severely for the death of the victim because the victim died. And that ain't right.
Instruction No. 4
KIDNAPPING RESULTING IN DEATH - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The offense of kidnapping resulting in death as charged in the Indictment has four essential elements, which are:
One: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., knowingly acting contrary to law, kidnapped, seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, abducted or otherwise carried away Dru Katrina Sjodin;
Two: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. held Dru Katrina Sjodin for some purpose or benefit;
Three: Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully transported Dru Katrina Sjodin in interstate commerce while she was so kidnapped, seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, abducted or otherwise carried away; and
Four: the death of Dru Katrina Sjodin resulted from the conduct.
For you to find Mr. Rodriguez guilty of this offense, the government must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise you must find him not guilty.
page 6:
Quote:The first statutory aggravating factor alleged by the government is that the defendant caused the death of Dru Sjodin during the commission of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnapping).
Death Penalty Phase
Special Verdict Form
http://www.ndcourts.com/court/new.htm
Quote:II. SECTION TWO
STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS
1. Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the United States has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., caused Dru Katrina Sjodin's death during the commission of the offense of kidnapping by the defendant?
YES _____ NO _____
Again:
CRIME + AGGRAVATING FACTOR = Death Penalty
CRIME (kidnapping + resulting in death) + AGGRAVATING FACTOR (same kidnapping resulting in death) = Death Penalty = Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause
CRIME (kidnapping + resulting in death) + AGGRAVATING FACTOR (finding that the kidnapper was the actual perpetrator of the act resulting in the death) = Death Penalty = No Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause
fishin wrote:CRIME (kidnapping + resulting in death) + AGGRAVATING FACTOR (finding that the kidnapper was the actual perpetrator of the act resulting in the death) = Death Penalty = No Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause
Fishin --
Please help me understand your logic here. How, in your opinion, would the facts of this case have to be different so the jury could have found that:
(1) Rodriguez was guilty of having committed a kidnapping resulting in death, but
(2) Rodriguez wasn't the actual perpetrator of the act resulting in the death.
Kidnapping is certainly an act, and we all agree that Rodriguez perpetrated it. Hence I don't see how, under your interpretation of the law, a jury could logically reach both verdicts at the same time.
joefromchicago wrote:The death of the kidnapping victim is not an element of aggravation, it is an essential element of the crime that the prosecution had to prove in order to move to the sentencing phase, where the only options are life imprisonment or the death penalty. Had the government not proven the death, it would not have been able to seek the death penalty at the sentencing phase. So counting the death of the victim as an aggravating factor in the sentencing phase is tantamount to saying that the defendant should be punished more severely for the death of the victim because the victim died. And that ain't right.
Then how do you explain Ring?
The complete instruction in the Rodriguez case was "The first statutory aggravating factor alleged by the government is that the defendant caused the death of Dru Sjodin during the commission of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnapping). In order for this statutory aggravating factor to exist you must unanimously find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alfonso Rodriguez caused Dru Sjodin's death, or caused an injury resulting in her death, during the commission of, or attempted commission of, or during his immediate flight from the commission of, the crime of kidnapping."
And from Ring we have: "The death sentence may be imposed only if the judge finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Following such a hearing, Ring's trial judge sentenced him to death. Because the jury had convicted Ring of felony murder, not premeditated murder, Ring would be eligible for the death penalty only if he was, inter alia, the victim's actual killer. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782. Citing accomplice testimony at the sentencing hearing, the judge found that Ring was the killer."
Doesn't the jury in this case also have to find that the victim not only died - but died due to action by the defendant just as they did in Ring? Rodriguez hasn't been convicted of murder. He was convicted of kidnapping resulting in death.
Let me clarify this for a second here. Let's say Person A is kidnapped by person B. Person A is then taken to some location where there may or may not be additional individuals. Person A dies.
At this point person B can be found guilty of kidnapping resulting in death.
But who killed person A? For person B to get the death penalty doesn't it have to be proven that they were the actual killer?
Does a guilty verdict for "kidnapping resulting in death" automatically presume that the kidnapper was also the killer? If so, what happens if a 3rd party actually kills person A?
If you'll reread the 1st aggravating factor as listed they weren't instructed to find whether or not a kidnapping resulting in death happened or not. They were asked to find wherther or not Rodriguez was the person responsible for that death - just as the judge did in Ring. That doesn't sound like double jeopardy to me.
"Life in prison wasn't punishing him because he got along fine in prison."
Carter said she understood the pleas by Rodriguez's family, but "everybody has family."
The sentencing verdict, which recorded how many jurors voted for each of the defense's 30 mitigating factors, showed the jury found the crime outweighed the trauma and circumstances in Rodriguez's life.
"We live in an area that's almost protected from such extreme violence," Heuer said. "It weighs on each and every one of us. I think it was the right decision in this case."
Both Heuer and Carter said they struggled with a death verdict, but the jury, including four alternates, came to see themselves as a family.
"We leaned on each other for life experiences," Heuer said. "I really didn't expect as much closeness."
Carter struggled to sign her name on the verdict form authorizing Rodriguez's death because of her faith and belief that in North Dakota "it's not really our way of doing things."
Still, she's comfortable with the decision.
"The magnitude of this crime, the terribleness of it, I think it was a shock to the people of this community," Carter said.
With the trial behind them, jurors said they must find a way to deal with emotions they've bottled up inside. The court offered jurors counseling if they choose.
"There were some days I would come home and have a hard time," Carter said. "The next week or two will be rather difficult."
She thinks of the grief felt by the Sjodin family.
"I feel like the right thing was done, but it really doesn't help them a lot," she said.
The foreman said he might struggle, too, as he shifts attention back to work.
"I did lots of crying last night (Friday)," Heuer said. "You break down. How can you not?"
Those tears, he said, came for a number of reasons. "The easiest to put your finger on is the compassion for Dru," Heuer said. "The other part is struggling with that decision. It's one day at a time. Hopefully, my faith and good Lord will support me and help me go forward."
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - The foreman of the jury that handed down North Dakota's first death sentence in nearly 100 years says it came down to three votes and a question of punishment for a horrific crime.
"As a Christian person I didn't know if I could agree to the death penalty," said Terry Heuer, 51, of Leonard, the foreman of the jury that sentenced Alfonso Rodriguez to death for killing University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin.
"But it came down to, 'Was life in prison really a punishment for this particular case?"' Heuer said Sunday.
Rodriguez, 53, of Crookston, Minn., was found guilty late last month in federal court in Fargo of a charge of kidnapping resulting in the death of Sjodin, 22, of Pequot Lakes, Minn. She disappeared from a Grand Forks shopping mall parking lot on Nov. 22, 2003, and her body was found the following April in a ravine near Crookston. Authorities said she was beaten, raped and stabbed.
Evidence including the knife Rodriguez used to cut Sjodin's throat and the rope that bound her arms were present in the jury room. Heuer, his voice wavering, said Sunday that those images and the memories of the trial - and the ultimate decision - will stay with him.
"I don't know that I have an opinion one way or the other on the death penalty," he said. "I made this decision personally just on this case. It comes down to - we end up having to deal with that for the rest of our lives."
The death penalty sentence on Friday came after six weeks of testimony in three separate phases of the trial. The jury of seven women and five men had to determine whether Rodriguez was guilty, whether he was eligible for the death penalty, and whether he should get that punishment. They answered yes all three times.
The final time, it took three votes to reach a unanimous decision, said Heuer and Arlys Carter, 71, of Lisbon, another jury member. Each of the first two votes came back 11-1 for death, with the one holdout juror finally deciding to change his mind, they said.
Heuer said the final juror, whom he did not name, was not pressured.
"Everybody had to make up their own mind on this," he said. "It's a traumatic thing to go through."
After the first 11-1 vote on Thursday afternoon, jurors left for the day early because "everybody just needed to come back fresh," Heuer said.
A vote early Friday again was 11-1, but the unanimous decision was reached after a little more discussion, he said.
"We were a very conscientious bunch of people," Heuer said. "We were very, very careful with each" of the 30 factors offered by defence lawyers to support life in prison instead of death.
In the end, those factors, including a childhood of poverty, sexual abuse and possible brain damage from exposure to farm chemicals, were not enough to warrant mercy, Carter said.
"He didn't show (Sjodin) mercy, and neither did he show any remorse that we could see," Carter said. "He was very expressionless through the whole procedure. He did smile when his niece and nephew came into the courtroom. I have no doubt he was fond of his family, and they of him, and that didn't make our decision any easier.
"I think we all felt that the evidence was so overwhelming to one side," Carter said. "There was very little defence for his side. It was just not enough to hold on to."
Carter said the four alternate jurors said they also would have voted for death, "which made us feel good."
Heuer said jurors "looked and looked and looked" for remorse and did not find it. Neither did they believe that Rodriguez was accepting responsibility for Sjodin's death, as his lawyers claimed, when he offered in March to plead guilty in return for a life sentence.
"I have very strong faith," Carter said, "and I think (Rodriguez) still has his chance for mercy like all the rest of us do."
Carter and Heuer said the jurors did not believe prison was a fitting punishment for Rodriguez.
"From all we heard he adjusted very well to prison life, that he behaved very well, and did not seem unhappy there," Carter said.
Rodriguez had gotten out of prison about six months before Sjodin's killing, after serving 23 years for earlier assaults against women.
North Dakota's last execution was in 1905 and the last person sentenced to death in the state was spared 10 years later. The state eventually abolished its death penalty law. Rodriguez was prosecuted in federal court, where a death sentence is allowed.
Carter said she hopes the issue does not arise for another 100 years, though she felt honoured and privileged to serve in this case.
"I would never want to do it again, but I would not have wanted to miss the opportunity to do it once," she said.
I read this entire thread. I am sure that Justice Scalia is happy that he does not have the enormous legal intellect of Joe from Chicago opposed to him. Judge Scalia also does not have to face the incredibly legal erudition of Debra LAW. I am going to write to Judge Scalia and tell him to beware of Joe from Chicago and Debra Law that despite their current unjust and unfortunate placements in the legal bureaucracy( alas, they haven't been elected to the Supreme Court as yet--due, no doubt to the fear they strike in the hearts of the poorly informed judges Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.
Perhaps, soon this can be remedied and we can get justice.
How could the Supreme Court Justices have missed Joe from Chicago and Debra Law's incredible talent? These people should have been at the very least, clerks for someone on the Supreme Court like the malignant dwarf--Bader or the superannuated Liberal--John Paul Stevens.
I look for the inevitable triumph of Justice and the ascencion of Debra LAW and Joe from Chicago to the higher reaches of the court system.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace