Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Jasper Phillip Rushing - Arizona Death Row

  1. #1
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875

    Jasper Phillip Rushing - Arizona Death Row


    Shannon Palmer


    Jasper Rushing


    Jasper Rushing during his resentencing trial


    Jasper Rushing’s new death row mugshot after being resentenced

    PRISON KILLER WHO SEVERED PENIS OF VICTIM SENTENCED TO DEATH

    By Ray Stern
    The Phoenix New Times

    An Arizona prison inmate who sliced off the penis of a seriously mentally ill inmate before killing him has been sentenced to death.

    Jasper Rushing, 45, already was serving a 28-year prison sentence for the 2001 murder of his stepfather when he mutilated and beat to death his cellmate, 40-year-old Shannon Palmer, in 2010.

    He was found guilty by a Maricopa County jury on June 1 after a 10-day trial. On Tuesday, a jury deliberated for four-and-a-half hours following the aggravation and penalty phases of the trial before sentencing him to die, according to County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office.

    As covered in a September 1, 2011 feature article in New Times, Palmer, a convicted burglar, had a long history of mental illness when he re-offended in 2008, shooting a gun in his backyard to ward off imaginary attackers. Serving a three-year sentence for criminal damage, he was placed in a cell in August 2010 with Rushing, whom he proceeded to accidentally aggravate because of his illness. As Rushing himself told former New Times scribe Paul Rubin in the comprehensive article, which tied the murder to the Grand Canyon-size holes in Arizona's mental healthcare system as well as poor prison policy:

    “It makes no sense at all to put a murderer in a cell living assholes-to-elbows with a guy who is crazy and probably shouldn’t be in prison at all. Bad things can happen in a house like that.

    “I can deal with just about anything within reason in prison. All I basically need is light, running water, and a book, and I’m okay. I guess this wasn’t within reason.


    “Day after day and night after night of his paranoid bullshit, and his disrespect for women and children. It was almost pitchblack in there because they couldn’t fix the lights. I couldn’t read or think straight. This is what can happen.”


    What did happen is that Jasper Rushing decided Shannon Palmer needed to die. It was much the same as in 2001, when Rushing, at age 20, murdered his stepfather because he became convinced the man had raped a young family member (no evidence of an assault ever emerged). Rushing shot the sleeping man to death inside a Yavapai County trailer."

    Evidence from the trial proved that Palmer was still alive when Rushing cut off his victim's penis before beating him to death with a paperback wrapped in a sheet.

    “The death penalty is a just punishment for those particular murders that qualify for the most severe penalty permitted under Arizona law,” Montgomery said in a written statement about the jury verdict. “This defendant’s case is just such an instance and also proves that incapacitating a violent offender does not guarantee they will not offend again, including taking the life of another.”

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...-death-7513230
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Death Penalty Overturned for Prisoner Who Cut Off Fellow Inmate's Penis

    BY ANTONIA NOORI FARZAN
    The Phoenix New Times

    The Arizona Supreme Court has vacated the death sentence for Jasper Phillip Rushing, who cut off the penis of a fellow inmate before beating him to death.

    In 2010, when the murder took place, Rushing was already serving a 28-year prison sentence for killing his stepfather, who he believed had raped a young relative of his. (No evidence of the rape ever surfaced.)

    At the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, Rushing was forced to share a small isolation cell with Shannon Palmer, who had a history of mental illness and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

    Palmer had been charged with criminal damage after he climbed a Salt River Project power pole during a thunderstorm and had to be talked down. He was reaching the end of his three-year sentence when Rushing killed him.

    The cell was supposed to house one person, not two, and Palmer's erratic behavior aggravated Rushing, as Phoenix New Times detailed in a 2011 cover story.

    Eventually, he snapped.

    The brutal beating raised questions about the Arizona Department of Corrections' policies for housing inmates, as well as the lack of mental health services available to people like Shannon Palmer who wind up incarcerated because the state doesn't know what else to do with them.

    In fact, after the murder, Rushing told Phoenix New Times writer Paul Rubin, "It makes no sense at all to put a murderer in a cell living assholes-to-elbows with a guy who is crazy and probably shouldn't be in prison at all. Bad things can happen in a house like that."

    He explained, "Day after day and night after night of his paranoid bullshit, and his disrespect for women and children. It was almost pitch-black in there because they couldn't fix the lights. I couldn't read or think straight. This is what can happen."

    During the trial, attorneys presented evidence that Palmer had still been alive when Rushing severed his penis with a shank that he'd fashioned from the blade of a disposable razor. He'd also wrapped a book in a bedsheet and used it to bash Palmer in the head, then gouged Palmer's throat open with the shank.

    A Maricopa County jury sentenced Rushing to death in 2015. Shortly afterwards, he filed an appeal, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated during the trial.

    On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the majority of his claims, but agreed with him on one point: The trial court had messed up by failing to tell jurors that Rushing was ineligible for parole.

    The court's newly released opinion states that jurors were given "a 'false choice' of death, natural life, or life with the possibility of release." In fact, there was no chance of Rushing ever being released, since he was already serving a life sentence for murdering his stepfather.

    That could potentially have influenced jurors' decision to impose the death penalty, the opinion notes:

    The prosecutor implied that Rushing could be released by telling jurors in the penalty phase opening statement that the court had rejected the State's request for a natural life sentence for the stepfather's murder and instead imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of release after twenty-five years. Rushing had served fourteen years of his life sentence at the time of trial, and he was then thirty-five years old. Some jurors might have believed that if the court
    again refused to impose a natural life sentence, Rushing could be released after serving twenty-five years of a second life sentence, whether that sentence was concurrent with or consecutive to the first sentence. The jury deliberated for
    most of a day, and it is not possible to know whether even the remote prospect of release affected any juror's decision to impose the death penalty.


    As a result of the error, Rushing's death sentence has been overturned — at least for now.

    In its decision, the Arizona Supreme Court also upheld his conviction for premeditated, first-degree murder. That means it's now up to the Maricopa County Superior Court to hold a new penalty phase proceeding to determine the sentence that he'll face.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...-penis-9847377

    Jasper Phillip Rushing was resentenced to life in prison.

    https://corrections.az.gov/public-re...ate-datasearch

  3. #3
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,317
    Another convicted Arizona killer is back in court over a sentencing flaw. How did this happen?

    By Elena Santa Cruz
    The Arizona Republic

    A man convicted of murdering his cellmate in 2010 at a state prison in Buckeye will return to Maricopa County Superior Court this week seeking to have his death penalty overturned.

    Attorneys for Jasper Rushing, now 42, were prohibited from telling the jury in his original trial that if he were given a life sentence, he would not have a chance to be released.

    That deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial and due process, something the U.S. Supreme Court upheld for a third time in February. His case had been sent back to Maricopa County after the high court ruled on that fact a second time.

    Rushing is one of 10 defendants, nine tried in Maricopa County, whose death penalties have gotten or will get a second look, because of recent Supreme Court rulings.

    The high court found that Arizona's courts disregarded case law for 30 years, including a precedent set in yet another Maricopa County case, that of Shawn Lynch.

    Some legal experts say as many as 30 Arizona death penalty cases could be revisited because of the court's recent decisions. That's more than one-quarter of the people on death row.

    In each of the cases, it's the death penalties — not the guilty verdicts — being reconsidered.

    "This whole mess could have been avoided if the Arizona Supreme Court followed the law that has been in place for nearly 30 years,” Dale Baich, a former assistant federal public defender, told The Arizona Republic last month.

    Arizona's death penalty remains under a spotlight because of these cases, recent struggles carrying out executions competently and a new governor, attorney general and prisons director.

    The new look at the cases also shines a spotlight on the judges and prosecutors who participated in the first trials.

    On Tuesday, opening arguments will begin anew in the penalty phase in Rushing's case. The case will be heard by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp.

    In 2015, Rushing was sentenced to death in Kemp's courtroom.

    This trial takes place almost six years after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Rushing was entitled to a new sentence because the jury was not made aware of his release ineligibility. The new hearing will determine if Rushing is eligible for the death sentence.

    Rushing was serving a life sentence without possibility of release before 25 years at the Lewis Prison Complex in Buckeye for the 2001 murder of his stepfather. In 2010, he was temporarily placed in an isolated cell with Shannon Palmer after both expressed unrelated safety concerns to corrections staff.

    Two weeks later, Rushing attacked Palmer with a razor and a sock stuffed with a softcover book. He struck Palmer multiple times in the face with the sock to the point where he was "almost unrecognizable," Jeannette Gallagher, the prosecutor in the case, argued in her opening statement at trial. Rushing used the razor to cut Palmer's throat and inflict other injuries, killing Palmer.

    In 2015, a jury convicted Rushing of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, Rushing said that he was not permitted to tell the jury that he was not eligible for release.

    In his trial, he was unsuccessful in his motion through his legal defense team of Randall Jay Craig and Stephen Duncan to instruct the jury about his parole ineligibility. Instead, Kemp told the members of the jury they could choose to sentence him to death or to life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years.

    Gallagher made Rushing's "future dangerousness," or the suggestion that he might kill again in the future, an issue by introducing evidence of his past violent acts and associations with violent groups like Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison group. A prison expert witness testified Rushing planned to help form a neo-Nazi skinhead group to "bring things back in order" in Prescott upon his release.

    The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with Rushing's argument that he should have been able to inform the jury about his release ineligibility.

    The court vacated his sentence, citing Lynch v. Arizona, a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the sentencing of Shawn Lynch, who was twice convicted in a 2001 Scottsdale murder.

    In the Lynch ruling, the high court told Arizona to follow its 1994 ruling in Simmons v. South Carolina. The Simmons ruling had guaranteed defendants had the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility as part of their due process rights provided by the U.S. Constitution.

    Now Rushing is again in Kemp's courtroom. Prosecutors for the new sentencing trial are Jessi Wade, Jennifer Carper and Josh Maxwell. Rushing is defended by attorneys James Wilson and Ariel Eilola.

    Nine other Arizona capital defendants in Maricopa County ran into the same juror instruction issue because of decisions and remarks made by prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges.

    Four of the 10 capital defendants, including Rushing, were able to get resentenced because their cases were still active when the U.S. Supreme Court made its Lynch decision in 2016.

    Six other capital defendants whose cases were final before 2016 were not as lucky, as the Arizona Supreme Court denied their post-conviction petitions to receive a new sentence because of a procedural difference.

    Defendants seeking post-conviction relief in Arizona must petition to a trial court, meaning that review is discretionary and the right to an appeal is not guaranteed. The high court denied their petitions and ruled that Lynch was not a "significant change in the law," which is a requirement for review.

    Those six later filed a joint petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to have their cases reconsidered, citing the court's rulings, and successfully had their sentences vacated last month.

    The laws on release ineligibility

    These cases all hinge on similar facts:

    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Simmons v. South Carolina that when a capital defendant's future dangerousness is put at issue during trial, they should be allowed to tell members of the jury that if they decide on a life sentence, it would be without parole.

    In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Arizona in Lynch v. Arizona to let capital defendants inform the jury about their parole ineligibility, as the courts had been ignoring the Simmons law and denying due process for at least six defendants in the state.

    Arizona abolished parole in 1994. However, Arizona's life without possibility of release has essentially the same meaning as life without parole in other states.

    Capital murder defendants in Arizona face three types of sentences: natural life, life with possibility of release after 25 years, and death. However, the only way a capital defendant in the state could be released after 25 years is through the recommendation of the Board of Executive Clemency, which requires the consent of the governor.

    The cases and their major players

    Failure to inform a jury of release ineligibility can be the fault of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys or all of the above.

    In many cases, the judge did not properly instruct the jury, denied defendants' attorneys the opportunity to inform the jury, or granted prosecutors' requests to prevent defendants from informing the jury. None of the judges in these cases has a disciplinary record, according to the State Bar of Arizona's website.

    Prosecutors played a major role through evidence presented and arguments made in trial that alluded to the future dangerousness of the defendants. Some asked the court to not let defendants discuss their parole ineligibility.

    Between January 2013 and October 2018, nine prosecutors in these 10 cases faced a complaint for their work in a capital case, public records show. A prosecutor in two of the cases is now disbarred: Juan Martinez, who gained international notoriety for prosecuting Jodi Arias.

    At least half of these condemned men were prosecuted by attorneys who were found to have engaged in misconduct, according to data provided by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. It is possible that even more cases had an attorney accused of misconduct or received a complaint, as some were tried before 2013.

    Defense attorneys are obligated to seek fair trials for their clients. Ideally, defense attorneys should be raising the 1994 Simmons and 2016 Lynch precedents, or else defendants might argue later they had ineffective counsel, as have some death row inmates on this list.

    Some of the cases that were resolved before Lynch did not raise the Simmons issue, highlighting a fault by the defense counsel on behalf of those defendants. Four defense attorneys from these cases have a discipline record with the State Bar of Arizona.

    All of the players had a role in the outcome of the capital defendants' trials through decisions made, and decisions not made.

    Lynch was convicted in 2006 and 2012 but will not get a new sentencing hearing because he died in prison in 2017 of natural causes. The judge in his first conviction was David Talamante, the prosecutor was Juan Martinez, and his defense was Joel Brown and Robert Stein. In Lynch's second conviction, the judge was Karen O'Conner, Martinez was the prosecutor again, and defense counsel were Lawrence Blieden and Brown. He was found guilty in the 2001 murder of James Panzarella, a Scottsdale man he met in a bar.

    Lynch's case was cited in all other nine capital cases during appeal or post-conviction petitions because of his 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case.

    Here are the other eight cases and their players at the time of their penalty phase sentencing:

    Steven Newell, convicted in 2004. The judge in the case was Barry Schneider, prosecutors were Cleve Lynch and Patricia Nigro, and defense counsel were Bruce Peterson and Tim Agan. Newell was found guilty of the 2001 murder and attempted rape of 8-year-old Elizabeth Byrd. He strangled her before dumping her body in a ditch near Southern and 37th avenues.

    Ruben Garza, convicted in 2004. The judge in the case was Gregory Martin, prosecutors were Mark Barry and George Gialketsis, and defense counsel were James Cleary and Christopher Dupont. Garza was found guilty of the December 1999 murder of his uncle’s estranged wife, Ellen Franco, and one of her roommates, Lance Rush, in the West Valley community of Waddell.

    Steve Boggs, convicted in 2005. The judge in the case was John Foreman, prosecutors were Robert Shutts and Ted Duffy, and defense counsel were Herman Alcantar Jr. and Nathanial Carr. Boggs was found guilty in the 2002 murders of Beatriz Alvarado, Kenneth Brown and Fausto Jimenez at a Mesa Jack in the Box.

    Fabio Gomez, convicted in 2001 and sentenced in 2003 and resentenced in 2010. The judge in Gomez's first sentencing was James Keppel, prosecutors were Patricia Stevens and Robert Shutts, and defense counsel were Daniel Raynak and Stephen Johnson. In his 2010 conviction, the judge was Ronald Steinle, prosecutors were Patricia Stevens and Ryan Green, and defense counsel were Herman Alcantar Jr. and Chris Flores. Gomez was found guilty of the 1999 murder and sexual assault of a neighbor, Joan Morane.

    Johnathan Burns, convicted in 2011. The judge in the case was Karen O'Conner, prosecutors were Vince Imbordino and Kristin Sherman, and defense counsel were Joseph Stazzone and Wesley Peterson. Burns was found guilty of the 2007 rape and murder of Jacquelan “Jackie” Hartman.

    Stephen Reeves, convicted in 2011. The judge in the case was Arthur Anderson, prosecutors were Kristin Larish and Treena Kay, and defense counsel were Lynn Burns and Thomas Glow. Reeves was found guilty of the 2007 murder of Norma Gabriella Contreras, 18, who was working alone in an office at 73rd Avenue and Indian School Road.

    Joel Escalante-Orozco, convicted in 2013. The judge in the case was Warren Granville, prosecutors were Burt Jorgensen and Susie Charbel, and defense counsel were Bobbi Falduto and Stephen Whelihan. Escalante-Orozco was found guilty of the 2001 first-degree murder, sexual assault and first-degree robbery of Maria Garza-Rivera in her Phoenix apartment. In 2019, he was resentenced to life in prison.

    Bryan Wayne Hulsey, convicted in 2014. The judge in the case was Joseph Kreamer, the prosecutor was Juan Martinez, and defense counsel were Michael Reeves and Patricia Hubbard. Hulsey was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 2007 murder of Glendale police Officer Anthony Holly during a routine traffic stop. In 2018, the court vacated the death sentence, citing the Lynch ruling. In 2020, Hulsey was sentenced to life without possibility of release.

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...g/70042931007/
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  4. #4
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,317
    Opening arguments begin for Arizona capital defendant who was given a sentence redo

    Elena Santa Cruz
    Arizona Republic

    Opening arguments began on Tuesday in the re-sentencing of a man who was convicted of killing his prison cellmate by bludgeoning him and slitting his throat in 2010.

    Jasper Rushing, 42, is back in court eight years after a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death for the murder of Shannon Palmer.

    On Tuesday, prosecutor Jessi Wade brought up Rushing's violent past and told the jury the vicious way that Rushing murdered Palmer. Rushing had put a book inside a sock and bludgeoned his 40-year-old cellmate. Then he slit his throat and cut his penis off with a razor blade.

    But jurors Tuesday never heard a statement from Rushing, who is representing himself. He opted out of making one.

    Rushing's resentencing was forced by the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming rulings from 1994 and 2016, which entitled Rushing to a do-over because the original jury was not fully informed about how life sentences in Arizona work. Parole was abolished in Arizona in 1994, so defendants in Arizona are entitled to a life without possibility of release sentence, or natural life, which essentially has the same meaning as life without parole in other states.

    But Rushing's original jury wasn't told that a life sentence meant that he wouldn't get out, at least not without the governor's permission.

    The problem of improperly informing juries about life sentences in Arizona has been an issue for at least ten other convicted men on death row in the state because of the decisions of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court has had to send seven of those cases back to the Arizona lower courts earlier this year because the state was ignoring a 30-year legal precedent that gives defendants the right to tell juries that if they were sentenced to life, they would not be eligible for release. Six went back to Maricopa County.

    Rushing is the last of four capital defendants who had their cases go back to Maricopa County because of the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He is the first of at least 30 other capital defendants to be resentenced this year since the high court upheld for a third time that capital defendants have the right to tell juries about their release ineligibility.

    Arizona's death penalty has been in the spotlight because of these cases, recent struggles in carrying out executions, and a new governor, attorney general, and prisons director.

    In front of a mostly female jury composed of one Black person, prosecutor Wade presented a slideshow with information about Rushing's 2001 first-degree murder conviction of his former stepfather. Wade also showed the new panel crime scene photos related to his murder of Palmer, who had been serving a 3-year sentence for criminal damage.

    "On Sept. 10, 2010, the defendant decided to become the judge and jury of Shannon Palmer," Wade said.

    Wade explained to the jury that Rushing was already serving a life without possibility of release for 25 years for the murder of his former stepfather, Rudy Gutierrez. She explained that Rushing's defense for that crime was that he said Gutierrez had molested his sister.

    "Killing Rudy was something that had to be done," she said, "The defendant had to right a wrong to protect his sister and exact revenge on this terrible, horrible man."

    Problem was, though, the sister said that never happened, Wade told the new jury. Wade said that Rushing made his decision to kill Gutierrez and nothing was going to stop him.

    Wade reminded the jury of the factors that made Rushing eligible for the death sentence. The fact that he committed his crime while in prison, that he was already serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, and that his murder of Palmer was especially heinous and morally corrupt.

    The jury did not hear anything from Rushing, other than "no," when Maricopa County Superior Judge Michael Kemp, who was the judge in his first trial, asked if he wanted to provide an opening statement.

    Rushing, dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit, appeared mostly calm throughout Tuesday's hearing. Sporting glasses and a mustache, he largely kept his head bowed and showed few responses to court action.

    In 2010, Rushing was 30 when he was placed in an isolated cell at the Lewis Prison Complex in Buckeye with Palmer. The two had expressed separate housing concerns to corrections staff, which resulted in them being temporarily housed in an isolated cell, designed for only one person. The two did not know each other prior.

    Rushing's time with Palmer was filled with tormenting, sheer exhaustion, his defense counsel, Randall Jay Craig, said during Rushing's trial in 2015. In their shared space, Palmer pushed Rushing's buttons with his consistent sexual comments about children, even Rushing's niece, his counsel said.

    Rushing was triggered by these comments, his counsel argued, because of sexual abuse he experienced throughout his childhood by his former stepfather, Rudy Gutierrez.

    "Something reminded Jasper Rushing of that horrible experience of being sexually abused by Rudy," his lawyer had argued, "That person being Shannon Palmer."

    On Sept. 10, 2010, 22 days after they were assigned to the same temporary cell, Rushing attacked Palmer with a razor and sock stuffed with a softcover book. He struck Palmer multiple times in the face with the sock to the point where he was "almost unrecognizable," Jeannette Gallagher, the prosecutor in his first trial, argued.

    Rushing had used the razor to cut Palmer's throat and cut his penis off, killing Palmer.

    When a corrections officer later went to their cell to serve them lunch, Rushing told him, "I think I just killed my cellie."

    Rushing was charged with first-degree murder.

    The state sought the death penalty and Rushing, through his legal counsel, tried to argue against that during the sentencing phase. Rushing, through his legal counsel Randall Jay Craig and Stephen Duncan, was unsuccessful in his request to tell the jury that he would not have a chance of release if he were given a life sentence.

    Gallagher highlighted Rushing's "future dangerousness," or the suggestion that he might kill again in the future. She introduced evidence of his past violent acts and his association with Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison group.

    In closing arguments, Gallagher read a portion of a letter Rushing wrote to his mother while he was in prison, where he stated that upon his release, he was going to help form a skinhead group in Prescott.

    "Our race is dying. I feel I need to do everything possible to ensure a safe environment for our white children. The Aryan race culture and destiny are my priority," he wrote.

    Despite her bringing that into evidence, Rushing was still not allowed to let the jury know that he essentially had no possibility of release. Judge Kemp told the jury in final instructions that they could sentence Rushing to death or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 years.

    The jury decided on death. In his direct appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Rushing argued that he was not allowed to tell the jury that a life sentence would make him not eligible for release, which violated his due process rights.

    In 2016, Arizona was found to have not been following the legal precedent set in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court case Simmons v. South Carolina. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that year in Lynch v. Arizona, that Arizona needed to follow the law and let defendants tell jurors about their release ineligibility.

    Since Rushing's appeal was active when the 2016 decision was made, the Arizona high court had no choice but to follow the ruling and decided in 2017 to send his case back to Maricopa County, citing Lynch and Simmons.

    During Tuesday's hearing, there was no mention of life without the possibility of release after 25 years in judge Kemp's preliminary instructions to the jury. The only sentence options the jury was told was life without possibility of release, or death.

    Although Rushing did not make an argument on Tuesday, defense counsel in his first trial argued that his childhood was filled with abuse and neglect. He suffered with untreated bi-polar and ADHD, and was mistreated by the Arizona Department of Corrections staff, lawyers argued, claiming all were all reasons he grew up to be angry and emotionally and mentally sick.

    Gallagher, the prosecutor at the time, argued that that those factors were either lies or exaggerated truths.

    Now, in 2023, a new jury may or may not hear the same arguments presented. They are expected to hear from two Department of Corrections staff members and two people related to Palmer this week.

    Closing arguments are projected to take place on Monday. Then jurors must decide for a second time if Rushing deserves a natural life sentence or death.

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...o/70100374007/
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  5. #5
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    A man on death row got a second chance on his sentence. An Arizona jury just delivered another death sentence

    By Elena Santa Cruz
    The Arizona Republic

    An Arizona capital defendant who got a sentencing re-do was sent back to death row Monday.

    Jasper Rushing, 42, was sentenced to death for the second time in the murder of his prison cellmate 13 years ago, in the first Arizona capital case to be brought back for a do-over since twin U.S. Supreme Court rulings earlier this year.

    After being instructed by Maricopa Superior Court judge Michael Kemp, who was the same judge that sentenced Rushing the first time, the jury deliberated just over an hour at the Maricopa County Superior Court.

    The fact that Rushing was found guilty of first-degree murder for Palmer could not play a factor in the jury's decision of whether Rushing should be put to death. Per the judge's instructions, jurors had to decide if there was any evidence presented during last week's new sentencing phase gave a reason as to why Rushing deserved leniency. However, Rushing did not present any evidence of that kind to the courtroom.

    Rushing, in his orange jumpsuit, had no visible reaction to the verdict other than keeping his head leveled and looking a little off to the side. One of his advisory attorneys, Ariel Eilola, shook her head in disapproval.

    Rushing was found guilty of first-degree murder and first sentenced to death in 2015. He put a softcover book inside a sock and bludgeoned 40-year-old Palmer at the Lewis Prison Complex in Buckeye. Then, he slit his throat multiple times and cut his penis off with a razor blade.

    On Monday, when Judge Kemp asked Rushing if he wanted to say anything prior to formally sentencing him, Rushing opted out of making a statement.

    Essentially, the jury heard almost nothing from Rushing throughout this sentencing phase that lasted almost a week.

    The prosecution was the only side that made closing arguments on Monday. Prosecutor Jennifer Carper emphasized to the jury again the three aggravating factors that made Rushing eligible for the death penalty: his crime against Palmer was heinous and morally corrupt, he was previously convicted of a crime where the death sentence could have been imposed, and he committed the offense while he was in prison.

    Carper also brought that Rushing was convicted of theft and drug possession, prior to his 2001 murder of his former step-father, which he was serving life with the possibility of release after 25 years at the time of Palmer's murder.

    "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time," Carper said.

    A theme presented in her argument was that Rushing never complained about Palmer to corrections staff that he had issues with his cellmate, despite later telling investigators that Palmer irritated him because he would make sexual comments about children, including a comment about Rushing's niece.

    When Palmer made that comment, Rushing said that he would kill him the next time Palmer made a comment like that, according to an interview Rushing had with investigators that Carper presented as evidence.

    Carper also argued that Rushing could have raised the same housing concerns that placed him with Palmer in the first place. The two were initially placed in the same cell because they had expressed separate safety concerns to corrections staff. But if Palmer irritated Rushing so much, Carper argued, then he could have said something.

    "The defendant knew how to get out of that prison cell...why didn't he do the same thing here?"

    Lastly, Carper argued that Rushing has been inconsistent with what he said in his arguments for killing Rushing. When talking to investigators the day of the crime, he said that Palmer made sexual comments about kids. Two weeks later, she said, Rushing had said that Palmer didn't say anything about kids.

    She likened this inconsistent reasoning for Rushing's murder of Palmer to that of his former step-father. Rushing believed his former step-father molested his sister, so he killed him in 2001. However, Rushing's sister had said she was not molested.

    "He doesn't let the truth get in the way of his justification for breaking the law," Carper said.

    Rushing is the last of four capital defendants whose cases went back to Maricopa County because of a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Lynch v. Arizona.

    Six years ago, the Arizona Supreme Court sent Rushing's case back to Maricopa County because Lynch told Arizona to follow a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that said capital defendants had a right to inform juries about their parole ineligibility. Parole was abolished in Arizona in 1994, but Arizona defendants are entitled to a life without possibility of release sentence, or natural life, which essentially has the same meaning as life without parole in other states.

    But Rushing's original jury wasn't told that a life sentence meant that he wouldn't get out, at least not without the governor's permission.

    Uninformed juries about life sentences in Arizona has been an issue in at least ten other cases for convicted men on death row in the state because of the decisions of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld for a third time that Arizona was ignoring the 30-year legal precedent that gives defendants the right to tell juries that if they were sentenced to life, they would not be eligible for release. As a result, seven cases have gone back to Arizona's lower courts for review. Six went back to Maricopa County.

    Rushing is the first of at least 30 other defendants on death row who could get resentenced since the high court made its third judgement on the issue this year.

    State's case in opening arguments

    Last week, the jury heard opening arguments from prosecutor Jessi Wade, who brought up Rushing's past violent actions and described the vicious way he murdered Palmer.

    Wade presented a slideshow to the jury and provided information about Rushing's 2001 first-degree murder conviction of his former stepfather, Rudy Gutierrez. She had brought up the fact that he tried to argue that Gutierrez molested his sister.

    "Killing Rudy was something that had to be done," she said, "The defendant had to right a wrong to protect his sister and exact revenge on this terrible, horrible man."

    But, Rushing's sister denied the fact. Wade argued that Rushing made his decision to kill Gutierrez and nothing was going to stop him.

    Through crime scene photos, she also dug into Rushing's murder of Palmer, who was serving a 3-year sentence for criminal damage.

    "On Sept. 10, 2010, the defendant decided to become the judge and jury of Shannon Palmer," Wade said. In closing arguments on Monday, prosecutor Carper echoed the same statement.

    At the end of her opening argument, Wade reminded the jury of the three factors that had made Rushing eligible for the death sentence.

    The jury did not hear anything from Rushing, other than "no," when judge Kemp, asked if he wanted to provide an opening statement.

    Monday marks an ending

    Rushing can still choose to argue another factor in his case, as now it goes to the Arizona Supreme Court for an automatic appeal.

    But for Frances Henderson, Palmer's mother who said in her victim impact statement that she was going to be there for her son when he was released from prison, this marks an ending.

    "All I can say is I'm glad it's done."

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...a/70108279007/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  6. #6
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,317
    Rushing has been added back to the death row roster as he was apparently formally sentenced on April 17.

    https://corrections.az.gov/death-row
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •