Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
This case, which originated in
Missouri, involved Christopher Simmons, who in 1993 at
the age of 17 concocted a plan to murder Shirley Crook,
bringing two younger friends, Charles Benjamin and John
Tessmer, into the plot.
The plan was to commit burglary and
murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and
tossing the victim off a bridge. The three met in the
middle of the night; however, Tessmer then dropped out
of the plot. Simmons and Benjamin broke into Mrs.
Crook's home, bound her hands and covered her eyes. They
drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge.
Once the case went to trial, the
evidence was overwhelming. Simmons had confessed to the
murder, performed a videotaped reenactment at the crime
scene, and there was testimony from Tessmer against him
that showed premeditation (he discussed the plot in
advance and later bragged about the crime). The jury
returned a guilty verdict.
Even considering mitigating factors
(no criminal history, sympathy from Simmons' family, and
most significantly for the later appeal, his age), the
jury nonetheless recommended a death sentence, which the
trial court imposed.
Simmons first moved for the trial
court to set aside the conviction and sentence, citing,
in part, ineffective assistance of counsel. His age, and
thus impulsiveness, along with a troubled background
were brought up as issues that Simmons claimed should
have been raised at the sentencing phase. The trial
court rejected the motion, and Simmons appealed.
The case worked its way up the court
system, with the courts continuing to uphold the death
sentence. However, in light of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling, in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
(2002), that overturned the death penalty for the
mentally retarded, Simmons filed a new petition for
state post conviction relief, and the Missouri Supreme
Court concluded that "a national consensus has developed
against the execution of juvenile offenders" and
sentenced Simmons to life imprisonment without parole.
The State of Missouri appealed the
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear
the case. (Donald P. Roper, the Superintendent of the
correctional facility where Simmons was held, was a
party to the action because it was brought as a petition
for a writ of Habeas corpus.)
The
ruling
The case was argued on October 13,
2004. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of
capital punishment for persons who were juveniles when
their crimes were committed, citing the Eighth Amendment
protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Previously, a 1988 Supreme Court
decision Thompson v. Oklahoma barred execution of
offenders under the age of 16. In 1989, another case,
Stanford v. Kentucky upheld the possibility of
capital punishment for offenders who were 16 or 17 years
old when they committed the capital offense.
The same day in 1989, the Supreme
Court ruled in the case Penry v. Lynaugh, that it
was permissible to execute the mentally retarded.
However, in 2002, that decision was overruled in
Atkins v. Virginia, where the Court held that
evolving standards of decency had made the execution of
the mentally retarded cruel and unusual punishment and
thus unconstitutional.
Under the "evolving standards of
decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and
unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the
age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the
majority, Justice Kennedy cited a body of sociological
and scientific research that found that juveniles have a
lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to
adults. Adolescents were found to be overrepresented
statistically in virtually every category of reckless
behavior.
The Court noted that in recognition
of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of
juveniles, almost every state prohibited those under age
18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without
parental consent. The studies also found that juveniles
are also more vulnerable to negative influences and
outside pressures, including peer pressure. They have
less control, or experience with control, over their own
environment. They also lack the freedom that adults have,
in escaping a criminogenic setting.
In support of the "national consensus"
position, the Court noted the increasing infrequency
with which states were applying capital punishment for
juvenile offenders. At the time of the decision, 20
states had the juvenile death penalty on the books, but
only six states had executed prisoners for crimes
committed as juveniles since 1989. Only three states had
done so in the past 10 years: Oklahoma, Texas, and
Virginia. Furthermore, five of the states that allowed
the juvenile death penalty at the time of the 1989 case
had since abolished it.
The Court also looked to
international law to support the holding. Since 1990,
only seven other countries – Iran, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, and China – have executed defendants who were
juveniles at the time of their crime.
Justice Kennedy noted that since 1990
each of those countries had either abolished the death
penalty for juveniles or made public disavowal of the
practice, and that the U. S. stood alone in allowing
execution of juvenile offenders. The Court also noted
that only the U. S. and Somalia had not ratified Article
37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (September 2, 1990), which expressly prohibits
capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles.
In drawing the line at 18 years of
age for actions with death eligibility, the Supreme
Court considered that 18 is also where the law draws the
line between minority and adulthood for a multitude of
other purposes, overturning its holding in Stanford
v. Kentucky that such a consideration was
irrelevant.
The
dissents
Justice Scalia wrote a dissent joined
by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. Justice
O’Connor also wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissents
put into question whether a “national consensus” had
indeed formed among the state laws, citing the fact that
at the time of the ruling only 18 of 38 death penalty
states (47%) prohibited the execution of juveniles.
However, the primary objection of the
Court's two originalists, Justices Scalia and Thomas,
was whether such a consensus was relevant. Justice
Scalia argued that the appropriate question was not
whether there was presently a consensus against the
execution of juveniles, but rather whether the execution
of such defendants was considered cruel and unusual at
the point at which the Bill of Rights was ratified.
In addition, Justice Scalia also
objected in general to the Court's willingness to take
guidance from foreign law in interpreting the
Constitution; his dissent questioned not only the
relevance of foreign law, but also accused the Court of
"invok[ing] alien law when it agrees with one's own
thinking, and ignor[ing] it otherwise," noting that in
the case of abortion U.S. laws are less restrictive than
the international norm.
In a roundtable discussion with
Justice Breyer, at American University-Washington
College of Law, Justice Scalia posed the question: "what
is the criterion for whether or not to adopt foreign
precedent? That it agrees with you?"
Scalia also attacked the majority
opinion as being fundamentally anti-democratic. His
dissent cited a passage from the Federalist Papers in
arguing that the role of the judiciary in the
constitutional scheme is to interpret the law as
formulated in democratically selected legislatures.
He argued that the Court exists to
rule on what the law says, not what it should
say, and that it is for the legislature, acting
in the manner prescribed in Article V of the
Constitution, to offer amendments to the Constitution in
light of the evolving standard of decency, not for the
Court to arbitrarily make de facto
amendments. He challenged the right of unelected lawyers
to discern moral values and to impose them on the people
in the name of flexible readings of the constitutional
text.
Implications
Constitutional Jurisprudence
The majority ruling highlighted
several controversies in the field of constitutional
jurisprudence. The first is the use of the concept of an
evolving "national consensus" to allow for the re-interpretation
of previous rulings. What constitutes evidence for such
a consensus - and from where the judicial branch derives
its authority to determine it and implement it into law,
a function constitutionally vested in the legislative
branch - especially in the case of capital punishment,
is unclear at this point.
In Roper v. Simmons the
majority cited the abolishment of juvenile capital
punishment in 30 states (18 of the 38 allowing capital
punishment) as evidence of such a consensus. In Atkins
v. Virginia it was the "consensus" of the 30 states (18
of 38 allowing capital punishment) that had banned
execution of the mildly retarded.
Another controversy is the role of
foreign laws and norms in the interpretation of U.S. law.
In 2004 Representative Tom Feeney (FL) introduced a non-binding
resolution instructing the judiciary to ignore foreign
precedent when making their rulings: "This resolution
advises the courts that it is improper for them to
substitute foreign law for American law or the American
Constitution. To the extent they deliberately ignore
Congress' admonishment, they are no longer engaging in 'good
behavior' in the meaning of the Constitution and they
may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which
would be impeachment."
Beltway
Sniper Case
The implications of this ruling were
immediately felt in the State of Virginia, where Lee
Boyd Malvo is no longer eligible for the death penalty
for his role in the Beltway sniper attacks that
terrorized the Washington, D.C. area in October 2002. At
the time of the attacks, Malvo was 17 years old. He had
already been spared the death penalty in his first trial
for the murder of FBI employee Linda Franklin in Falls
Church, Virginia, and pleaded guilty in another case in
Spotsylvania County, he had yet to face trial in Prince
William County, Virginia, as well as in Maryland,
Louisiana and Alabama.
In light of this Supreme Court
decision, the prosecutors in Prince William County have
decided not to pursue the charges against Malvo. At the
outset of the Beltway sniper prosecutions, the primary
reason for extraditing the two suspects from Maryland,
where they were arrested, to Virginia, was the
differences in how the two states deal with the death
penalty. While the death penalty is allowed in Maryland,
it is only applied to persons who were adults at the
time of their crimes, whereas Virginia had also allowed
the death penalty for offenders who had been juveniles
when their crimes were committed.
Further
Developments
In Ex parte Adams, 955 So. 2d 1106
(Ala. 2005), the Supreme Court of Alabama remanded the
death sentence of a juvenile murderer for a rehearing in
the lower court in light of the Roper decision, which
was released while the Adams case was pending appeal.
Justice Tom Parker, who had
participated in the prosecution of the case, recused
himself. He, however, published an op-ed in The
Birmingham News to criticize his non-recused colleagues
for the decision. "State supreme courts may decline to
follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those
decisions bind only the parties to the particular case,"
wrote Justice Parker.
The State sought review in the
Supreme Court, raising a single issue, "Whether this
Court should reconsider its decision in Roper v. Simmons,
543 U.S. 551 (2005)." The Supreme Court denied
certiorari on June 19, 2006, without a published dissent,
thereby ending the matter.
Juvenile Offender Facing Execution in Missouri
Case Overview
Facts of the Case
Christopher Simmons was 17 years of age at the time
of his arrest for the September 9, 1993 murder of Shirley Crook. Crook’s
body was found in the Meramec River in St. Louis County. She had been
tied with electric cable, leather straps and duct tape, had bruises on
her body and fractured ribs. The medical examiner determined the cause
of her death was drowning. Prior to the crime, Simmons had no previous
criminal record.
The Trial
The jury that sentenced Simmons was never adequately
informed of Simmons’ social history or the possible efforts on his
behavior, including his abusive childhood, possible mental condition and
drug dependency.
The only testimony presented portrayed Simmons as a
good brother, a loving son and a compassionate person who provided
support to his friends and family. Defense attorneys failed to elicit
critical information from the few witnesses called to testify. Further,
the defense did not present the effects of Simmons’ childhood abuse on
his development and behavior, his drug abuse history, his mental
functioning and his potential mental illness.
The evidence presented was so minimal that at least
one member of the jury, James V. Biundo, a professor at Southeast
Missouri State University, was left wondering how it was possible that
Simmons, a loving brother and good neighbor, could have participated in
such a crime.
Christopher Simmons Suffered Physical
and Mental Abuse
Simmons’ stepfather, Bob Hayes, an alcoholic was
abusive, both physically and mentally, during Simmons’ childhood. Hayes
would scream at Simmons, intimidate him and beat him severely. In one
incident, Hayes tied Simmons, a toddler at the time, to a tree so that
he would not have to supervise him while fishing. This example was
reported by Bob Hayes himself in an interview with Dr. Robert Smith, a
clinical psychologist who evaluated Christopher Simmons after the
sentence of death.
One of Simmons’ friends, Christie Brooks, testified
that she saw the stepfather hit Simmons so hard in the ear that blood
trickled down his neck. It was later discovered that his eardrum had
burst as a result of this attack. Miss Brooks asserts that she witnessed
Simmons’ embarrassment, crying and sobbing as a result of his abuse.
Simmons’ mother, Cheryl Hayes, was too intimidated by her husband, to
intervene.
In an interview with Dr. Smith which took place after
Simmons’ trial, Cheryl Hayes confessed that she had “taken on a “victim”
mentality, viewing herself as helpless and unable to function
independently. As a result, she was unable to defend her son from
emotional and physical abuse. This emotional abandonment led Christopher
Simmons questioning his mother’s love him and his personal value”.
Cheryl Hayes’ admissions were supported by psychological testing.
Simmons’ maternal aunt, Maria Osburn, could have also
testified to the abuse he suffered. She viewed her nephew’s role in the
home as essentially that of a “slave”.
Alcohol and Drug Addiction
Simmons was exposed to alcohol at an extremely early
age. His maternal aunt saw him being served alcohol at his mother’s
wedding. When Simmons was four years old, his father took him to a bar
and gave him alcohol for the amusement of other patrons.
By his teenage years, Simmons was drinking hard
liquor and smoking marijuana almost daily. On occasion, he would use
magic mushrooms, LSD and cocaine.
When the abuse at home became particularly bad,
Simmons would escape to a neighbor’s trailer home. It is reported that
this neighbor, a 28 year old man, would provide the neighborhood younger
children with drugs, often making them commit crimes and give him the
proceeds.
Possible Mental illness
According to Dr. Smith, given the environment in
which Simmons was raised and his family’s prior generational history of
psychiatric illnesses and substance abuse, which is reported by Cheryl
Hayes and Maria Osburn, Christopher was predisposed to developing a
psychiatric illness.
Moreover, during Simmons’ state post-conviction
hearing, Dr. Smith determined that Simmons’ lack of a loving, supportive
male role model contributed to his “low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence,
and distorted views about his relationships”. He felt insecure, alone,
depressed and hopeless.
Dr. Smith testified to his conclusion that Simmons
suffered from schizotypal personality disorder, a disorder distinguished
by a pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by
acute discomfort and a reduced capacity for close relationships and
cognitive and perceptual distortions.
Because of the abusive environment where Simmons was
raised, it was postulated that he was never able to express anger, and
his resentment grew inside of him. Dr. Smith stressed the link between
Simmons’ personality disorder and his substance use: alcohol and drugs
became one of the ways to reduce his anxiety.
Current Status
On August 26, 2003 the Missouri Supreme Court vacated
Christopher Simmon's death sentence, holding that juvenile executions
violate the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution under the "evolving
standards of decency" test.
This clearly has potentially far reaching
ramifications in regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty as
applied to juveniles. In reaching this decision, the Court noted both
domestic and international standards. The State of Missouri subsequently
appealed the decision to the United States' Supreme Court. On January
26, 2004, the Court granted cert and oral arguments were heard on
October 13, 2004. A decision is anticipated in Spring 2005.
Executing Juvenile Offenders
American justice is founded on fundamentals
principles, which punishes according to the degree of culpability and
reserves death for the worst offenders. By their very nature, juveniles
are less mature, and therefore less culpable than adults. Adolescence is
a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions,
judgment, impulse control, identity -- even the brain -- are still
developing.
Immaturity, compounded by additional extenuating
circumstances, may demonstrate why the death penalty is not an
appropriate form of punishment. A high percentage of juveniles on death
row have suffered from all, or a combination of, the following
mitigating factors; mental abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug
addiction, abandonment and severe poverty.
Executing Juvenile Offenders is
Contrary to International Law
The ultimate goal of the international community is
to abolish the death penalty under all circumstances; however, until
that time there are restrictions on the categories of persons who can be
executed, juveniles being one of the restricted categories. The
prohibition of the execution of juvenile offenders is referenced in a
number of international treaties, declarations, and statements by
international bodies, in addition to the laws of the majority of nations.
The execution of juveniles is expressly forbidden in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
Article 6(5), the American Convention on Human Rights, Chapter 2,
Article 4, Section 5, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection
of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 68 and the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 37.
Since 1990, only seven countries have reportedly
executed juveniles: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC), Yemen, Pakistan and the United States. In the last three
years this small number of nations known to have executed child
offenders has further declined to only four: the DCR, Iran, Pakistan,
and the US. In 1994, Yemen changed its law to prohibit the execution of
juveniles. The Nigerian government has asserted to the UN Sub-Commission
that the execution, which took place in 1997 was not of a juvenile and
Saudi Arabia emphatically denies the 1992 execution of a juvenile. In
July 2000, Pakistan moved to outlaw such executions under the Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance signed on 1 July 2000. However, it has been
reported that Pakistan executed Ali Sher on 3 November 2001 for a crime
he committed at the age of 13. Since that time, President Musharrah of
Pakistan has commuted the death sentences of approximately 100 young
offenders to imprisonment.
In December 1999, the DRC called for a moratorium on
all executions. However, in January 2000, a 14 year-old child soldier
was executed in the DRC. Since that time, according to OMCT-World
Organization Against Torture, four juvenile offenders sentenced to death
in the DRC in a military court were granted stays and the sentences were
commuted following an appeal from the international community.
It is unmistakable that beyond the borders of the
United States, the application of the death penalty for child offenders
is rapidly advancing towards total abolition. Of the six countries,
other than the US, that have reportedly executed juvenile offenders, all
have either changed their laws or the governments have denied that the
executions took place.
Letters Asking For Clemency
April 17, 2002 - Letter from Government of Mexico
asking for clemency.
April 10, 2002 - Government of Switzerland -
letter asking for clemency, signed by Ambassador of Switzerland,
Christian Blickenstorfer.
April 9, 2002 - The Council of Europe has sent a
letter asking Governor Holden to grant Chris Simmons clemency.
April 17, 2002 - The European Union has issued a
demarche asking Governor Holden to grant Chris Simmons clemency.
Briefs, Petitions, etc.
State of Missouri's petition for writ of
certiorari - October 2003
Petition for Clemency
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Trial Level
Applicability of Atkins v Virginia
Issues
European Union and Members of the International
Community (Amicus)
Former US Diplomats (Amicus)
Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (Amicus)
Amicus briefs in support of Simmons were also
filed by numerous other organisations representing scientific,
psychological, religious, legal and States' perspectives among
others.
July 19, 2004 - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Press
Comment anticipating the filing of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Amicus Brief in Support of Christopher Simmons.
"In every nation, children face challenges to
their dignity, their safety, their health, and their education. The
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate brief in the Christopher Simmons case
intends to send the message that children need our sympathy and care.
They require our protection, not our judgment. Our societies are
legitimately concerned about violence. If there is violence among
our children, we must address its root causes in our adult world and
in our failures to address our children's basic necessities. A
regime that sentences children to its harshest adult punishment
displays a lack of basic comprehension of their needs. As Jesus said,
when the child asks for bread, what parent gives him a stone?"
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Press Comment
anticipating the filing of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Amicus
Brief in Support of Christopher Simmons, July 19, 2004.
News
February 11, 2004 - The US Supreme Court granted
a filing date extension to Missouri. The State's brief is now due on
April 21. Simmons will then have 35 days to reply.
January 26, 2004 - US Supreme Court grants cert
in Simmons' case
September 3, 2001 - Teen executions opposed----Missouri
court's ruling is latest in debate
August 31, 2003 – Balance of Power
August 26, 2003 - The Missouri Supreme Court has
vacated Christopher Simmons' death sentence holding that juvenile
executions violate the 8th Amendment of the United States
Constitution under the "evolving standards of decency" test.
March 5, 2003 - The Missouri Supreme Court will
hear oral arguments on Simmons' case on March 5, 2003.
November 26, 2002 - The Missouri Supreme Court
issued an order granting a writ of habeas corpus in Simmons' case.
Missouri must respond to the writ in 15 days. Simmons will then have
30 days to file a brief. Missouri will then have 20 days to respond
and Simmons will have 10 days to reply. The court will then schedule
oral argument.
May 28, 2002 - Missouri Supreme Court stays
Simmons execution. This announcement came the same day as Napoleon
Beazley, another juvenile offender, was executed.
May 27, 2002 - Murderous adolescents, Napoleon
and Chris, await their turn to die
April 24, 2002 - Missouri Supreme Court postpones
execution of juvenile offender
Supreme Court Is Urged to Reject
Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders
Washington Post, October 14, 2004
A plea to declare capital punishment for juvenile
offenders unconstitutional received a skeptical hearing at the Supreme
Court yesterday, as one of two justices likely to be pivotal to the
outcome repeatedly voiced doubts.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy observed that he was "troubled"
that a ban might lead gang leaders to use 16- or 17-year-olds as "hit
men."
"I'm very concerned about that," Kennedy told Seth P.
Waxman, a former U.S. solicitor general who was arguing on behalf of
Missouri death row inmate Christopher Simmons, who faces execution for a
murder he committed at 17. "I'm talking about the deterrent value of the
existing rule."
Waxman replied that deterrence does not work with
juvenile offenders because they "are impulsive and subject to peer
pressure."
But Kennedy responded that many 17-year-old offenders
were "ringleaders" in brutal, calculated murders, citing a friend-of-the-court
brief filed by a group of states that wish to retain a death penalty for
juveniles. Kennedy said the brief was "chilling reading."
Kennedy's vote is crucial because four justices, John
Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer,
have already declared their belief that executing those who commit
crimes while under the age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment."
The records of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas suggest that they think the
issue should be left up to the states.
That leaves only Kennedy and Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor as possible fifth votes for a ban. O'Connor was mostly silent
in yesterday's hearing.
The Supreme Court upheld capital punishment for 16-
and 17-year-old offenders in 1989. It banned it for those 15 and under
in 1988.
Until now, the court's position has been unaffected
by its 2002 decision to ban the death penalty for the moderately
mentally retarded. In that case, Kennedy and O'Connor joined Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
The court found that a national consensus against the
practice had formed since 1989. The best evidence for that, the court
ruled, was that the number of states banning the death penalty for the
retarded had grown from two to 13.
Many opponents of the death penalty immediately
recognized that a similar argument could be applied to juveniles.
Yet in the 2002 opinion, written by Stevens, the
court seemed to warn that it was not ready for that, contrasting the
strong trend against executing the retarded with the fact that, between
1989 and 2002, only two states had raised their minimum ages for capital
punishment to 18.
Three times in the past two years, the court refused
to hear appeals from death row inmates who had killed while they were
juveniles -- despite a strongly worded dissent in one case from Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Last year, the court actually reinstated the death
penalty of a juvenile offender in Oklahoma after a federal appeals court
had blocked it. The vote was 5 to 4, with Kennedy and O'Connor in the
majority.
The court intervened in the Simmons case only after
the Missouri Supreme Court threw out Simmons's sentence last year on the
grounds that the 1989 precedent had, indeed, been superseded by the 2002
case.
Waxman pressed a similar argument yesterday. He told
the court that the execution of juvenile criminals conflicts with a "robust
consensus" reflected in the recent decisions of several states to ban
the practice and in the decreasing frequency with which juries impose
the death penalty on those under 18. Scientific evidence shows that the
areas of the brain in charge of judgment and impulse control are
incomplete in adolescents, he said.
Death is the wrong punishment for crimes that reflect
"the transient psychosocial characteristics that rage in adolescents,"
Waxman said.
But Kennedy noted that the American Psychological
Association -- which told the court in a brief in this case that
adolescents are too immature to qualify for capital punishment -- had
also said in a case about parental notification for abortion that
teenagers are old enough to make such a decision on their own. "They
flip-flopped," Kennedy said.
Waxman said there is no inconsistency because "what
was at issue in that case was the competency to decide," while the
question in this case involves "factors why adolescents are less morally
culpable."
He urged the court to act based on a "worldwide
consensus" against the death penalty for juveniles, noting that, except
for the United States, all 110 countries that have capital punishment do
not apply it to those under 18.
States that permit it "are not just alone in this
country, they are alone in the world," he said.
On this point, Kennedy appeared to sympathize with
Waxman, asking Missouri state Solicitor James R. Layton: "There seems to
be a very substantial demonstration that world opinion is against us. .
. . Does that have a bearing on what's 'unusual' " punishment?"
Layton replied that "what matters" is U.S.
legislation.
O'Connor's only remark hinted at some openness to
Waxman's position.
Addressing Layton, she noted that the number of
states that either do not have capital punishment or set the age at 18
is "about the same" as the number of those with bans on executing the
retarded in 2002, which was 30.
"There is no inexorable trend here," Layton replied.
The case is Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633. A decision
is expected by July.
Supreme Court will revisit execution of teenage killers
Associated Press
January 26, 2004
The Supreme Court, which 2 years ago abolished
executions for the mentally retarded, said Monday it will now consider
ending the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes.
The court said it will reopen the question of whether
executing very young killers violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel
and unusual punishment." Currently, states that allow the death penalty
may impose it on killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes.
The court's decision, expected by June, continues the
high court's reexamination of who belongs on death row and how the death
penalty is carried out.
The court agreed to hear the case of a Missouri man
who was 17 when he robbed a woman, wrapped her head in duct tape and
threw her off a railroad bridge in 1993. The state Supreme Court
declared it unconstitutional to send people to their deaths for killings
committed when they were younger than 18.
The 4-3 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court
overturned the death sentence of Christopher Simmons, and sentenced him
to life in prison instead.
Four Supreme Court justices are on record opposing
the execution of very young killers, but until now they could not
persuade their colleagues to reopen the debate.
In 2003, the 4-member liberal wing of the court
issued an unusual statement calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile
killers.
"The practice of executing such offenders is a relic
of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a
civilized society," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote then. He was joined
by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The rhetoric echoed the court's 2002 ruling that it
is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. In both instances,
the constitutional question turns on the defendants' ability to
understand their situation, and their level of culpability.
Also like the retardation question, this one will
involve an examination of whether the country has changed its mind about
what kind of punishment is appropriate.
The court relied heavily on the actions of state
legislatures in deciding to ban executions of the retarded. On that
issue, the court said the large number of states that had acted on their
own to ban such executions showed that the nation no longer supported
the practice.
The court majority said, in effect, that times change
and that the constitutionality of such executions changes with them. The
6-3 ruling drew fierce dissents from the court's three most conservative
members, who view the Constitution as a more rigid document.
Shortly after that ruling, Stevens predicted that
juvenile killers would be the next major death penalty question before
the court.
The issue has been there before. The high court
upheld juvenile executions in 1989, and will now consider reversing that
ruling.
Only the United States and a handful of other
countries allow execution of juvenile killers, and death penalty
opponents argue that such executions violate not only the Constitution
but an international treaty signed by the United States.
Currently, 17 states that allow the death penalty for
other people prohibit it for those who were under 18 when they committed
their crimes. The federal government also prohibits the practice for
juveniles prosecuted in federal court.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center,
there are now 82 inmates on death row nationwide for crimes committed
when they were under 18. States have put to death 22 such inmates in
recent years.
The case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.
Teen executions opposed----Missouri
court's ruling is latest in debate
Kansas City Star
September 3, 2003
In the Middle Ages, children who killed at age 14 or
even younger faced execution.
In 1988, the United States Supreme Court forbade
executions for those who had killed at age 15 or younger. The next year,
it ruled 5-4 that juvenile killers who were 16 and 17 could be put to
death.
Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court ripped open a
debate as old as civilization when it ruled 4-3 that executing anyone
for a crime committed as a minor is unconstitutional.
Iran and the Republic of the Congo are the only other
nations that sanction executing juveniles, the ruling noted. More and
more states, including Kansas, forbid it.
Evolving standards of decency have made such
executions cruel and unusual punishment, the Missouri court ruled. It
said the U.S. Supreme Court would agree - apparently setting up a clash
in the nation's high court.
Many of the advocacy groups who fought such
executions and lost in 1989 said they would file support briefs.
"This case will give us an opportunity to weigh in,"
said Dennis Archer, national president of the American Bar Association
in Washington, D.C.
The bar association opposes executing minors because
children are not developed enough to appreciate their actions, he said.
"Under the age of 18, one can't enter into a contract,
join the armed services or buy alcohol or cigarettes," Archer said.
He expected the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case,
he said, but even if it does not, the Missouri ruling will be cited by
lawyers nationwide in all such death cases. Someday, he said, such
executions will end.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the
California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports
victims' rights, said the Missouri ruling is legally improper and the
U.S. Supreme Court might react to that.
Judge William Ray Price wrote in his dissenting
opinion last Tuesday that the court's decision flies in the face of laws
already on the books.
Missouri law currently allows convicted murderers as
young as 16 to be sentenced to death. A bill by Sen. Ed Quick, a Liberty
Democrat, to increase the age to 18 failed in the last legislative
session.
Sen. Matt Bartle, a Lee's Summit Republican and
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there has been a shift
in the court politically. Four of the seven judges were appointed by
Democratic governors Mel Carnahan and Bob Holden.
"If the seven judges on the (Missouri) Supreme Court
want to change policy, they need to run for the legislature," Bartle
said.
The nation's high court could just do a summary
reversal - overturn the Missouri ruling without a hearing and with just
a few words.
"A summary reversal is generally regarded as a bit of
a spanking," Scheidegger said.
As for executing minors, he said, "It's an issue each
state is capable of deciding for itself."
The ruling notes that states are increasingly turning
away from executions for crimes committed by juveniles.
According to the ruling:
16 states with the death penalty - now 17 - and
military courts require a minimum age of 18 at the time of the crime for
execution. Until last week, Missouri was among 22 states that allowed
execution of juvenile offenders.
But such executions are rare. Missouri has only
executed 1 person since 1937 for a crime committed as a minor.
Nationwide, only 22 juveniles have been executed since 1973, with more
than 80 % of those in Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma.
The rareness of the executions shows that society has
moved beyond them, the ruling states.
But others say the death penalty should be available
for minors.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, who said he will
appeal the Missouri ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, noted the horrible
crime in that case.
The ruling changed the sentence of Christopher
Simmons, 27, of St. Louis from execution to life without parole. He was
17 in 1993 when he kidnapped Shirley Crook, bound her and pushed her
from a bridge into the Meramec River. Simmons allegedly told an
accomplice they could get away with it because they were juveniles.
"When you get actions that are so depraved, heinous,
horrendous," Nixon said, the death penalty is appropriate.
Dudley Sharp, resource director of Texas-based
Justice For All, a victims advocacy group, said, "The real evolving
standard is that we would give death rarely in a juvenile case but we
would like to reserve it for the worst cases."
Nationwide, the majority of people say they are
against executing juveniles, he said, but they back off when asked about
a case like that of Lee Boyd Malvo. He is accused of being the
Washington, D.C.-area sniper who at age 17 shot people to death and
bragged about his aim. He faces trial and possibly the death penalty in
Virginia.
Sharp said he also rejected the logic of the Missouri
ruling, which extended to minors the same reasoning the United States
Supreme Court used last year in banning the execution of the mentally
retarded.
That does not work, he said, because "all minors are
different; some 16- or 17-year-olds are as mature as some 18- or 20-year-olds."
Sharp said he expected the U.S. Supreme Court to
overturn the Missouri ruling. He noted that the nation's high court had
recently approved several executions of juvenile killers.
But sometimes just barely.
In a December 2002 dissent, 4 U.S. Supreme Court
judges called executing minors under 18 "a relic of the past ...
inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."
So spoke judges John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Supporters of the Missouri ruling, including dozens
of advocacy groups, hope to help swing the additional vote needed to end
the executions.
Psychiatrist Mark A. Wellek of Arizona, past
president of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, thinks his
group can file a brief that will win over at least Judge Sandra Day
O'Connor.
His card: Brain scan tests developed in the past 5
years establish that the brains of teenage males are not fully developed
and can make them prone to irrational actions.
"Impulse and action, almost instinct, drives the
whole thing," he said. "They cannot think ahead of actions."
The part of the brain that involves reasoning and
impulse control is no more developed in an 18-year-old male than in one
of 14, he said, and does not become fully developed until males reach
their 20s.
In females, the impulse to control part of the brain
is fully developed by age 18, Wellek said. There are no girls on death
row."
Balance of power
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - August 31, 2003
The Missouri Supreme Court's 4 Democratic appointees
inserted themselves into the national death penalty debate last week,
earning praise with a 4-3 ruling as bold visionaries and condemnation as
brazen activists.
The court managed all that with a decision released
Tuesday that struck down the death sentence of Christopher Simmons.
He was 17 when he tied up Shirley Crook of Fenton and
threw her from a railroad bridge into the Meramec River after a botched
robbery in 1993. The ruling says that executing someone who was younger
than 18 when the murder was committed would violate the U.S.
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
If the ruling stands, Simmons will spend the rest of
his life in prison.
The court earned the kudos and brickbats primarily
for getting ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which last ruled directly
on the issue of juvenile offenders in 1989. Then, it permitted the
execution of those who were at least 16 at the time of their crimes. The
Missouri ruling says that given other decisions the U.S. high court has
made in recent years in death penalty cases, it surely has changed its
views on this as well.
"This court finds the (U.S.) Supreme Court would
today hold such executions are prohibited ..." says the Missouri ruling,
written by Judge Laura Denvir Stith.
In the dissent, Judge William Ray Price Jr. wrote
that the 4-3 ruling is "directly in conflict" with U.S. Supreme Court
precedent. He added, "It is the United States Supreme Court's
prerogative, and its alone, to overrule one of its decisions."
Attorney General Jay Nixon agrees with Price. He said
he will ask U.S. Supreme Court to review the Missouri decision. Nixon
said he disagreed with the court's reasoning and its claim that Simmons
should be spared because of age.
"We should live under the rules of the Supreme Court
until they're overturned, not use legal Ouija boards," Nixon said. "And
I don't believe that Chris Simmons' life would have been turned around
by one more birthday party."
Unless the Missouri Supreme Court ruling is
overturned, Missouri prosecutors can no longer seek the death penalty
against offenders who are younger than 18, said St. Louis County
Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch.
Opponents of capital punishment hailed the Simmons
ruling. And 3 law school professors who were interviewed for this
article endorsed Stith's reasoning. The ruling cited the U.S. court's
decision last year barring the execution of mentally retarded offenders
and what Stith called growing public opposition to executing juveniles.
(All 3 professors oppose the death penalty, at least as currently
practiced in Missouri.)
Jeff Stack, legislative coordinator of Missourians to
Abolish the Death Penalty, said the ruling "helps us catch up with the
norms of most of the world. We welcome a challenge to the U.S. Supreme
Court."
Another element in the debate is the 4-3 split on the
Missouri court. Gov. Bob Holden's appointment in February 2002 of
Richard B. Teitelman of St. Louis, a former legal-aid lawyer, gave the
Missouri Supreme Court its first majority of Democratic appointees in
years.
Since then, the court has reversed proportionately
more death cases than it had during the years when Republican appointees
of former Gov. John Ashcroft, now U.S. attorney general, held sway. And
the 4-3 split, while not common, showed up in 2 other high-profile death
cases during the past year.
The same majority voted one year ago to grant a new
trial to Kenneth Baumruk, who murdered his wife in a shooting rampage in
the St. Louis County Courthouse in 1992. And it also granted the order
in April that eventually freed Joseph Amrine. He was sent to death row
in 1985 for a prison murder based upon testimony from 3 other inmates
who since have recanted.
Joining Stith and Teitelman in the Simmons case
Tuesday were judges Ronnie L. White and Michael A. Wolff. Joining Price
in dissent were Chief Justice Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. and Duane Benton.
Holden appointed Stith and Teitelman, the late Gov. Mel Carnahan
appointed White and Wolff, and Ashcroft appointed Price, Limbaugh and
Benton before he left the governor's office in 1993.
The Post-Dispatch reviewed state Supreme Court death
penalty rulings since 1997, the 1st year in which the court published
decisions on its Web site. The review shows the court has affirmed 6
death sentences and reversed 6 others so far this year. Most of those
reversals were unanimous rulings.
In 2002, the court affirmed 7 and reversed 6.
That roughly 50-50 reversal rate is much higher than
the court's record from 1997 through 2001, when it affirmed 61 death
cases and reversed 18. Until March 2001, when Stith was appointed,
Ashcroft appointees still had a 5-2 majority on the court.
McCulloch, who criticized the Simmons ruling, said
the Missouri Supreme Court "is certainly heading in the direction" of
hostility to death sentences. To Stack, of the coalition opposing
capital punishment, the court's shift "shows the judges are giving a
more critical eye to these cases, rather than serving as a rubber stamp."
Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder,
R-Cape Girardeau, called the shift on the court "one of the most
undernoticed developments in Missouri government."
"This decision is especially alarming," said Kinder,
who also is a lawyer. "It reads like something pulled out of the air. It
is not law, properly understood."
Kinder warned that more such decisions could inspire
an effort to unseat one of the majority judges when they stand for voter
retention. State law requires that Supreme Court judges be retained in
office by statewide vote at least 1 year after they are appointed and
then every 12 years. Stith was retained last November, but Teitelman
must stand before voters next year.
Sen. Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood and majority floor
leader in the Missouri Senate, said: "We now have a very activist
majority on our court that is stepping into the legislative arena.
Presuming what the U.S. Supreme Court might do is not its role."
Stith's ruling goes like this:
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in separate
cases that states could execute offenders who were 16 or older at the
time of their crimes and that there was no constitutional bar to
executing offenders who may be mentally retarded. Since then, only 6
states, including Missouri, have executed offenders who were younger
than 18 at the time. (In 1993, Missouri executed Frederick Lashley of St.
Louis, who was 17 when he killed his stepmother, Janie Tracy, in 1981.)
Meanwhile, 5 states outlawed executing juveniles,
bringing to 16 the number that prohibit the practice. Numerous religious
and civic organizations oppose it, as well as the United Nations.
Clearly, therefore, evolving standards in the United States support a
ban, the ruling says.
"This court clearly has the authority and obligation
to determine the case before it based on current - 2003 - standards of
decency," Stith wrote.
In a poll taken in May 2002, the Gallup Organization
found that 70 % of its respondents support the death penalty for
murderers, but only 26 % endorse executing juveniles.
The Missouri Legislature's spring session considered,
but did not pass, bills to raise the minimum age to 18 from the current
16. State Rep. Robert Mayer, R-Dexter and crime committee chairman, said
there was no strong push to change it. Missouri considers an offender to
be an adult as of his or her 17th birthday, but allows courts to certify
16-year-olds as adults in death cases.
Illinois does not allow execution of offenders who
were under 18 when they committed their crimes.
Only 2 people in Illinois have been sentenced to
death since January, when outgoing Gov. George Ryan commuted the death
sentences of all 167 Illinois death row prisoners.
And the state's freeze on executions remains in force.
The Illinois Legislature in June adopted an overhaul of the death
penalty system, although Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed a small part that
legislators will reconsider in the November veto session.
Other than Simmons, the only other Missouri offender
whose case fits the issue is Antonio Richardson. He was 16 when he raped
sisters Julie and Robin Kerry and tossed them from the old Chain of
Rocks Bridge in 1991.
The 3 law professors who endorsed Stith's reasoning
are Roger Goldman of St. Louis University, Peter Joy of Washington
University and professor emeritus Edward Hunvald of the University of
Missouri. They said death penalty cases are special matters and noted
that the U.S. Supreme Court already is known to be 1 vote short of
endorsing Stith as well, although it declined to take up a similar case
only last January.
"It's like reading tea leaves," said Goldman. "I know
that Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor has her problems with the death
penalty, so you're talking about how 1 justice might go. And the court
did, all of a sudden, reverse the retardation case."
Said Joy, "The Missouri Supreme Court isn't
absolutely bound by old precedent. What it has done is consistent with
the (U.S.) Supreme Court's own decision on executing the mentally
retarded. . . . It's a fundamental matter of what's right and wrong, and
the United States doesn't stand in very good company on the (juvenile)
issue."
Hunvald called the state court's strategy "unusual.
But one way to look at it is that this approach makes it much more
likely for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case."
The Supreme Court ruling that banned the execution of
mentally retarded offenders was Atkins v. Virginia.
Court: Death sentence wrong for
juveniles
The Daily American Republic – August 28,
2003
Citing changing societal standards, a closely divided
Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday declared unconstitutional the
execution of offenders who were juveniles at the time they committed
their crimes.
The 4-3 decision came in the case of Christopher
Simmons, who was 17 years old when he murdered a Jefferson County woman
in 1993. A Cape Girardeau County jury found Simmons guilty of 1st-degree
murder and recommended the death sentence in 1994.
The court's majority commuted Simmons' death penalty
to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Attorney General Jay Nixon said he will appeal the
ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This case flies in the face of U.S. Supreme Court
precedent," Nixon said.
Simmons' attorney, Jennifer Herndon of St. Louis,
said the federal high court has long recognized that what constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment changes with the
attitudes of society.
"What this precedent says is we have to be governed
by evolving standards of decency," Simmons said.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing
those who committed crimes at age 15 or younger violates the Eighth
Amendment. A year later, however, the court upheld capital punishment
for juvenile offenders ages 16 and 17.
The same day the latter decision was issued, the
court also upheld executions for the mentally retarded. However, the
court reversed itself last year, holding that a national consensus
against applying capital punishment to the mentally retarded had since
developed.
Judge Laura Denvir Stith, who wrote the principal
opinion in Simmons' case, found that a similar change has taken place in
regard to juveniles.
Since death sentences for juveniles were upheld in
1989, the majority noted that several states have barred such executions
and that even where still allowed, few such sentences have been carried
out.
Voicing the state court's opinion, Stith wrote, "the
execution of persons for crimes committed when they were under 18 years
of age violates the 'evolving standards of decency that mark the
progress of a maturing society' and is prohibited by the Eighth
Amendment."
Stith's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Ronnie L.
White and judges Richard B. Teitelman and Michael A. Wolff.
In dissent, Judge William Ray Price Jr. said only the
U.S. Supreme Court can reverse itself.
Price noted that the federal high court has had ample
opportunities in recent years to overturn its earlier ruling but chose
not to do so. Judges Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. and Duane Benton joined the
dissenting opinion.
Of the 38 states that allow the death penalty,
Missouri is 1 of 17 states that set age 16 as the minimum to be eligible
for capital punishment. Another 5 states allow such sentences for 17-year-olds.
A spokesman for the attorney general's office said it
appears Tuesday's ruling, if upheld, would affect only one other
Missouri death row inmate.
Tuesday's decision also could affect the case of
Antonio Richardson, whose execution was stayed in 2002 by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Richardson, was convicted of murdering 2 girls in St.
Louis in 1991. He was 16 at the time.
In 1993, Frederick Lashley became the only person
since the state took over executions from the counties in 1937 to be put
to death for a crime committed as a juvenile.
Body thrown in river
On Sept. 10, 1993, Simmons abducted Shirley Crook
after she discovered him breaking into her Jefferson County home. After
binding her hands and feet and covering her head, Simmons threw her off
a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. Her body was later
discovered downriver.
After exhausting his regular avenues of appeal in
state and federal courts, Simmons was scheduled for execution in June
2002. The imposition of sentence was delayed after Simmons sought a writ
of habeas corpus, which the court granted Tuesday.
Simmons, now 27, is incarcerated at the Potosi
Correctional Center.
Missouri Supreme Court stays
Simmons execution
Agence
France-Presse
May 28,
2002
ST. LOUIS, Missouri -
The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the execution of
Christopher Simmons for a murder he committed when he was 17 years old.
The stay, which postponed the execution indefinitely,
came on the same day that Texas executed Napoleon Beazley for committing
a murder at the same age.
Simmons' execution was stayed pending the outcome of
a capital case now before the US Supreme Court, which will decide
whether the execution of a mentally retarded person violates the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
Simmons' attorneys contend he was mentally ill when
he and two younger boys kidnapped Shirley Crook and threw her off a
bridge to her death.
Simmons' age at the time of the murder has also been
an issue.
A recent effort in the Missouri legislature to raise
the age limit for the death penalty from its present level of 16 failed
to pass.
Murderous adolescents, Napoleon and
Chris, await their turn to die by Patrick Anidjar
Agence
France-Presse
May 27,
2002
WASHINGTON - The black Texan and the
white Missourian sit on death row in different states, don't know each
other and seem to have little in common, other than the fact that they
are scheduled to die by lethal injection.
What unites them is that Napoleon Beazley, 25, and
Chris Simmons, 26 are scheduled to become the 19th and 20th people
executed in the United States since 1976 for crimes they committed as
minors, both at the age of 17.
"The execution of Mr. Beazley will occur at 6:00 pm
(2300 GMT) in Huntsville" on Tuesday, May 28, said Larry Fitzgerald
spokesman for the Texas department of criminal justice.
Simmons is due to be executed June 5, in Jefferson
City, in the central US state of Missouri.
The men's lawyers are doing what they can to stay the
executions, with the US Supreme Court as a last resort.
Beazley, the son of an alderman in Grapeland, Texas,
had no criminal record before he was convicted in the 1994 killing of
John Luttig, a 63-year-old Texas businessman and the father of a judge.
His son, Michael Luttig, who is from a federal
appeals court in Virginia, has worked in the past with three Supreme
Court justices.
The three have had to recuse themselves so as not to
be involved in Beazley's case.
The young man's execution was initially scheduled for
last August. But it was delayed by an appeals court in Texas amid doubts
about the quality of defense received by Beazley while his appeal was
being considered.
As in Beazley's case, the murder committed by Simmons
has never been contested.
This smart-looking young man with blond hair was
sentenced to death for the murder of a woman whose apartment he burgled.
He later threw her into the Meramec River in Missouri state.
His execution was initially set for late April but
was rescheduled by the Missouri Supreme Court for June 5.
Since the death penalty was reestablished in the
United States in 1976, Missouri courts have sentenced to death four
people who were minors at the time they committed their crimes. Only one
of them has so far been executed.
The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the age of
death row inmates was in 1989.
Then, the high court found that it would be
unconstitutional to imposed the death penalty on a person who was only
15 when the crime was committed.
Of a total of 38 US states that enforce the death
penalty, 17 states, including Missouri, have a minimum age to receive it
of 16.
In five states, including Texas, the death penalty
eligibility age was set at 17, while 16 states don't execute anyone
younger than 18.
Many organizations, including Amnesty International,
the European Union and Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South
Africa, have urged the authorities of Texas and Missouri to spare the
lives of Beazley and Simmons.
"We are holding our breath," said Steve Harper,
director of Juvenile Justice Project, a group that provides minors legal
help. "There has been a tremendous amount of interest in both cases."
Harper said he hoped authorities would consider
commuting the sentences of both men.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center,
there are currently 83 inmates on death row in the United States who
were minors at the time they committed their crimes.
Missouri Supreme Court postpones
execution of juvenile offender
By
Shashank Bengali - The Kansas City Star
Christopher Simmons was 17 when he and another teen-ager
broke into a suburban St. Louis woman's home, robbed her, bound her with
electrical cable and duct tape, and drove her to a bridge over the
Meramec River.
Then, according to court records, Simmons pushed
Shirley Crook into the river, killing her. He was convicted of murder
and sentenced to die by injection.
His case is among many nationwide that have come
under growing scrutiny as death penalty opponents have stepped up their
fight against executing offenders who were younger than 18 at the time
of their crimes.
Simmons, now 26, was slated to die this Wednesday,
but last week he won a brief reprieve when the Missouri Supreme Court --
with no explanation -- postponed his execution until June 5.
The decision surprised observers, some of whom
speculated that the court might have wanted to delay the execution until
after the legislative session.
State Sen. Roseann Bentley, a Springfield Republican,
has sponsored a bill that would raise the minimum age for executions to
18 at the time the crime was committed. A similar bill sponsored by Rep.
Craig Hosmer, a Springfield Democrat, is pending in the House.
Missouri law currently allows the death penalty for
first-degree murder convictions of anyone older than 16.
Bentley said she wasn't familiar with the Simmons
case when she filed her bill.
"I just felt that juveniles are immature and
malleable, and those circumstances ought to be taken into consideration,"
Bentley said. "In almost every other legal matter we don't consider
people adults until they're 18, and that's why I filed the bill.
"Of course, after I filed it, I heard about Chris
Simmons."
Bentley's bill remains stalled in committee, and with
only three weeks left in the legislative session -- and contentious
issues such as the budget and a stadium bill yet to be resolved --
lawmakers will have to hustle in order to get to it.
"My bill, unfortunately, is not on a fast track," she
said. "I think it's a very good possibility, at this late date, it may
not make it."
Bentley is leaving the Senate after this session
because of term limits. She said, however, that the issue probably would
not fade in Missouri because of mounting criticism of juvenile
executions nationwide.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year indefinitely stayed
the execution of Missouri inmate Antonio Richardson, who was 16 at the
time of his crime. Richardson was convicted for his role in the 1991
deaths of two sisters who were pushed off an abandoned Mississippi River
bridge in north St. Louis. The court reversed the death sentence of
another Missouri inmate, Heath Wilkins, who was convicted in the 1985
stabbing death of store clerk Nancy Allen in Avondale, in Clay County.
He also was 16 at the time of his crime.
Earlier this month, Indiana became the 28th state to
bar juveniles from the death penalty. That number includes 12 states
that outlaw capital punishment altogether. According to the American Bar
Association, proposals to bar the execution of juveniles also are being
considered in Texas, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Kentucky and Mississippi.
Death penalty foes note that only four other nations
allow the execution of juveniles: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and
Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire).
Since reinstating the death penalty in 1977, Missouri
has sent to death row four persons who were younger than 18 when they
committed their crimes. Only one, Frederick Lashley, has been executed.
Some argue that raising the minimum age would be
perceived as softening Missouri's stance on crime.
During Simmons' trial, in 1994, the Jefferson County
prosecutor said the crime was so severe that Simmons' age should not be
considered a mitigating factor.
"Seventeen years old," the prosecutor told the jury.
"Doesn't that scare you? Mitigating? Quite the contrary, I submit."
Simmons was one of four Missouri inmates who appeared
in an anti-death penalty ad campaign by the Italian clothier Benetton.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon sued the company.
A settlement last summer called for Benetton to
apologize to the families whose relatives were killed by inmates
featured in the ads and required the company to donate $50,000 to the
Missouri Crime Victims Compensation Fund.
Several rallies have been held in St. Louis and
Jefferson City asking Gov. Bob Holden to spare Simmons, citing his age
at the time of the crime as well as the fact that he suffers from
schizotypal personality disorder, which is marked by extreme social
anxiety and paranoia.
The court-ordered delay was a surprising move,
observers said. Spokesmen for Nixon and Holden said they neither
requested the delay nor knew why it was granted. Simmons' attorney,
Jennifer Brewer, said she had not filed any pleas.
"The court did this entirely on their own," Brewer
said.
The defense team still plans to submit last-minute
pleas for clemency, Brewer said.
She added that Simmons was heartened by the court's
decision.
"He's happy, obviously," Brewer said. "He figures, if
it's only another month, it's another month to live."
The Associated Press contributed to this
report. – April 29, 2003
State of
Missouri v. Christopher Simmons
944 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. banc 1997)
Case Facts:
In early September 1993, Simmons then 17,
discussed with his friends, Charlie Benjamin (age 15) and John Tessmer (age
16), the possibility of committing a burglary and murdering someone.
On several occasions, Simmons described
the manner in which he planned to commit the crime: he would find
someone to burglarize, tie the victim up, and ultimately push the victim
off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends that their status as juveniles
would allow them to "get away with it."
Simmons apparently believed that a "voodoo
man" who lived in a nearby trailer park would be the best victim. Rumor
had it that the voodoo man owned hotels and motels and had lots of money
despite his residence in a mobile home park.
On September 8, 1993, Simmons arranged to meet Benjamin and Tessmer at
around 2:00 a.m. the following morning for the purpose of carrying out
the plan. The boys met at the home of Brian Moomey, a 29-year old
convicted felon who allowed neighbor teens to "hang out" at his home.
Tessmer met Simmons and Benjamin, but refused to go with them and
returned to his own home. Simmons and Benjamin left Moomey’s and went to
Shirley Crook’s house to commit a burglary.
The two found a back window cracked open at the rear of Crook’s home.
They opened the window, reached through, unlocked the back door, and
entered the house. Moving through the house, Simmons turned on a hallway
light. The light awakened Mrs. Crook, who was home alone. She sat up in
bed and asked, "Who’s there?" Simmons entered her bedroom and recognized
Mrs. Crook as a woman with whom he had previously had an automobile
accident. Mrs. Crook apparently recognized him as well.
Simmons ordered Mrs. Crook out of her bed and on to the floor with
Benjamin’s help. While Benjamin guarded Mrs. Crook in the bedroom,
Simmons found a roll of duct tape, returned to the bedroom and bound her
hands behind her back. They also taped her eyes and mouth shut. They
walked Mrs. Crook from her home and placed her in the back of her
mini-van. Simmons drove the can from Mrs. Crook’s home in Jefferson
County to Castlewood State Park in St. Louis County.
At the park, Simmons drove the van to a railroad trestle that spanned
the Meramec River. Simmons parked the van near the railroad trestle. He
and Benjamin began to unload Mrs. Crook from the van and discovered that
she had freed her hands and had removed some of the duct tape from her
face.
Using her purse strap, the belt from her
bathrobe, a towel from the back of the van, and some electrical wire
found on the trestle, Simmons and Benjamin found Mrs. Crook, restraining
her hands and feet and covering her head with the towel.
Simmons and Benjamin walked Mrs. Crook to
the railroad trestle. There, Simmons bound her hands and feet together,
hog-tie fashion, with the electrical cable and covered Mrs. Crook’s face
completely with duct tape.
Simmons then pushed her off the railroad
trestle into the river below. At the time she fell, Mrs. Crook was alive
and conscious. Simmons and Benjamin then Mrs. Crook’s purse in to the
woods and drove the van back to the mobile home park across from the
subdivision in which she lived.
Her body
was found later that afternoon by two fishermen. Simmons was arrested
the next day, September 10, at his high school.
*****
Christopher Simmons was scheduled to be
executed on June 5, 2002 (postponed from May 1, 2002). The Missouri
Supreme Court issued a stay of that execution.
*****
Missouri Supreme Court resentences
Christopher to life without parole. (August 26, 2003, Jefferson
City, Missouri) A habeas corpus proceeding from Jefferson County
involving the constitutionality of the death penalty for a juvenile who
committed murder in St. Louis County. It was argued Wednesday, March 5,
2003. In a 4-3 decision written by Judge Stith, the Court set aside
Simmons' death sentence and resentenced him to life imprisonment without
eligibility for probation, parole or release except by act of the
governor. Judge Wolff concurred in the majority opinion and also wrote a
separate concurring opinion, and Judge Price wrote a dissenting opinion.