|
"For once, the public and law enforcement agencies all agree.
They believe that Queens District Attorney6 Richard A. Brown has
enough evidence in the Wendy's murder to make an open and shut
case for the death penalty.
However, under New York State law, there are many legal twists and
turns facing prosecutors in a death penalty case. Prosecutors, in
first degree murder cases, must conduct two, not one trials. The
first, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant; and
the second, to determine the penalty in the event the defendant is
found guilty.
However, there are also a long list of legal exceptions to the
death penalty: "Thrill killers" or gang initiation
murderers, for example are immune from capital prosecution. Since
May, 1999 Governor Pataki has sought to eliminate this legal
exception. Similarly the law exempts emotional disturbance for
which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse."
|
|
The Queens grand jury, which began its hearing last Thursday, has
already heard and seen mountains of incriminating evidence,
ranging from physical evidence, to sharp-eyed witnesses, and
topped off by videotaped and written confessions by the two
defendants.
They have also viewed other incriminating videotapes made by the
store's security camera, which physically places the defendants at
the scene of the crime at the time that it was committed.
It shows them walking into the Main Street fast food store just
before 11:00PM on May 24, as the workers were preparing to close
shop.
The security tape also shows the six employees going and to the
basement where they were eventually shot.
Under Sec. 125.27 of the State Penal Law, a person is guilty of
murder in the first degree when intentionally causing the death of
a person while in the course of robbery or burglary. |
|
In addition to the existence of aggravating factors, DA Brown must
also routinely consider a host of mitigating factors during the
120 days following the Grand Jury's decision, says veteran
criminal attorney Victor Knapp. |
|
These
mitigating factors, said Knapp, include
whether the crime involved a defendant who was drug or alcohol
dependent, had recurring mental problems, committed a spur of the
moment or premeditated criminal act, or even has not had past
history of violence.
A key
aspect in the defendant's attorneys representation, said Knapp,
could be their conferences with the Queens District Attorney. At
these critical meetings, the defense team can present the
mitigating factors which they believe could persuade the DA not to
seek the death penalty. For example, the DA might be persuaded if
they present strong evidence to prove that their client was acting
under duress or dominance of an other person, or that their
client's role in the crime was relatively minor.
Despite this opportunity to present mitigating circumstances for
their clients, defense attorneys are actually aware that
aggravating factors may outweigh mitigating factors. |
|
Sitting in his Queens Boulevard offices, Knapp pointed out that
New York State's death penalty law was still not absolute.
"Under the law," he declared, "if a jury is not
unanimous with respect to a sentence and become eligible for
parole after serving a minimum of 20 years in a state
prison."
Late last month, DA Brown, who has for years expressed his
personal distaste for capital punishment, declared that before he
asked a jury to consider a sentence of death that he would "thoroughly
and scrupulously investigate and evaluate all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the crime - not simply the callousness and brutality
of the crime." |
| |
|