Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: David Scott Detrich - Arizona Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    David Scott Detrich - Arizona Death Row




    Facts of the Crime:

    On the evening of November 4, 1989, David Detrich and codefendant Charlton traveled to Tucson from Benson, Arizona. They picked up the victim, a 38-year-old female, who was hitchhiking somewhere in the Tucson area. Charlton then drove Detrich and the victim, a known drug addict, to a residential location where they bought $75 worth of cocaine.

    They went to the victim's home and the victim went into a bedroom and returned with a hypodermic syringe. Detrich became extremely angry when he realized that the cocaine was "bad" and could not be intravenously injected. He threatened the victim and blamed her for the poor quality of cocaine.

    Detrich demanded that the victim have sex with him, but the victim ignored him and pretended to sleep. He then placed a knife to her throat and continued to threaten her and demanded sex. While holding her at knife point, Detrich forced the victim into Charlton's car and told Charlton to drive out of town. Detrich raped the victim in the front seat and stabbed her numerous times before slitting her throat.

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    9th Circuit Tosses Sentence for David Detrich AZ DR in 1989 Murder

    The Ninth Circuit tossed Detrich's death sentence in today's orders/opinions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during penalty phase. Conviction was upheld.

    Opinion is here:

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0/08-99001.pdf

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Convicted killer will get another chance to escape death penalty

    A man convicted in the brutal 1989 death of a Tucson hitchhiker will get another chance to escape the death penalty.

    In a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Harold Higgins did not properly investigate the background of David S. Detrich to see if there were factors which a jury could have considered when deciding if he should be executed or instead sentenced to life behind bars.

    The judges said Higgins devoted little time to that work, which courts have repeatedly ruled is an attorney’s obligation in a death penalty case. They also said that he did not hire an investigator trained in looking for “mitigating evidence’’ and he didn’t even ask the investigator he had to seek out the kind of details that might have resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment.

    In issuing the ruling, the appellate court sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court for a resentencing hearing. But the judges said if prosecutors are not interested in pursuing the case, Detrich will automatically be sentenced to life behind bars.

    Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said she will assign a prosecutor to go back through the records of the case and present the facts to her office’s “capital case panel’’ which will decide whether to again seek the death penalty or end the court fights and settle for the life term.

    This is actually the second time the case has been sent back to the trial court. In 1994 the Arizona Supreme Court tossed the entire conviction, ruling that the judge did not give the jury proper instructions.

    Friday’s ruling leaves intact the second conviction, setting aside only the penalty.

    According to court records, Detrich and co-worker Alan Charlton were driving from Benson to Tucson on Nov. 4, 1989. There, the pair picked up Elizabeth Souter, hoping she might help them find cocaine. The three bought some drugs and drove her home.

    Detrich then became angry at Souter when he discovered he had bought “bad drugs.’’ Charlton said the trio left the house, with Detrich holding Souter at knifepoint.

    Her half-naked body was found in the desert several days later with 40 stab wounds.
    Charlton was convicted separately and received 10 and a half years.

    In Arizona, all trials where a prosecutor seeks the death penalty are divided into two phases. The first involves innocence or guilt. If there is a conviction, then the jury hears evidence and decides the person’s fate.

    Under Arizona law, the jurors have to determine there was at least one “aggravating factor,’’ such as whether the murder was committed for money or the killing was in an especially heinous or cruel manner. Then they decide if there are sufficient factors to mitigate against the death penalty.

    In this case, appellate Judge Richard Paez wrote, Higgins did not even begin to look for mitigating factors until after the conviction and just two weeks before the sentencing hearing. All totaled, the court said, Higgins spent just 10 and a half hours on the penalty phase.

    Paez said there were, in fact, factors that might have convinced a jury to spare Detrich. These include abuse by his step-mother, alcohol abuse encouraged by his step-father at a very young age, a prolonged custody battle between his parents, drug abuse by his mother and frequent absences from school.

    And Paez said Higgins was at fault for failing to consult a mental health expert.

    Higgins told Capitol Media Services he did not recall the details of the case and did not wish to comment.

    http://www.yumasun.com/news/penalty-...t-higgins.html

  4. #4
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    The US Supreme Court has today remanded Detrich's case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Pinholster decision.

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Justices order Arizona court to reconsider voiding killer's death sentence

    The state will get another chance to put a man convicted of murdering a Tucson hitchhiker back on death row.

    In an unsigned order, the U.S. Supreme Court told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision voiding the death sentence of David S. Detrich. The appellate court said defense attorney Harold Higgins did not properly look into Detrich’s background to see if there were factors a jury could have considered when deciding whether he should be executed to sentenced to life behind bars.

    What changed is that last year the nation’s high court, in another death penalty case, sharply restricted the power of federal courts to second guess decisions made by state courts. It specifically precluded federal courts, in reviewing a criminal case for constitutional violations, from taking up arguments that never were made to the state court.

    None of this guarantees, though, that the 9th Circuit, reviewing Detrich again, will reach a different conclusion. But it does give state prosecutors another chance to make their case that the death penalty imposed by the trial judge should stand.

    According to court records, Detrich and co-worker Alan Charlton were driving from Benson to Tucson on Nov. 4, 1989. The pair picked up Elizabeth Souter, hoping she might help them find cocaine. The three bought some drugs and she was driven home.

    Detrich became angry at Souter when he discovered he had bought “bad drugs.” Charlton said the trio left the house, with Detrich holding Souter at knifepoint.

    Her body was found in the desert several days later with 40 stab wounds.

    Charlton was convicted separately and received 10 1/2 years.

    In Arizona death penalty cases, prosecutors have to show there was at least one “aggravating factor,’’ such as the murder was committed for money or was committed in an especially heinous or cruel manner.

    If a jury agrees the death penalty is justified, it then has to decide whether there are factors mitigating against the death penalty.

    In voiding the sentence, the appellate judges said Higgins devoted little time to that, which courts have repeatedly ruled is an attorney’s obligation in a death penalty case. They also said he didn’t hire an investigator trained in looking for mitigating evidence or ask the investigator he had to look for details that might have resulted in a life sentence.

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/ari...cc4c03286.html

  6. #6
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    DAVID SCOTT DETRICH v CHARLES L. RYAN

    On Remand From The United States Supreme Court.

    Before: Harry Pregerson, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

    Opinion by Judge Paez;
    Dissent by Judge McKeown


    The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari,
    vacated our judgment, and remanded this case for further consideration
    in light of Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131
    S. Ct. 1388 (2011). See Ryan v. Detrich, 131 S. Ct. 2449
    (2011) (Mem.). Having reconsidered the facts and issues of
    this case in light of Pinholster, see discussion infra at p. 4584,
    we again conclude that Detrich is entitled to habeas relief.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  7. #7
    Senior Member Member Unsub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    147
    About the SC overruling him:
    Ever defiant of the Supreme Court as he makes his wayward rulings, Reinhardt has declared, “They can’t catch them all.” He’s undoubtedly right about that, but at least the justices haven’t given up.

  8. #8
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    The Ninth Circuit may just end up overruling the three-judge panel en banc. Only a few diehards seem willing to repeatedly defy the US Supreme Court after Pinholster--namely, Reinhardt, Pregerson and Paez (and Detrich had the astounding luck to get two of them).

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    DETRICH V. RYAN

    In an opinion dated October 3, 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Detrich's case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a).
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Moh View Post
    The Ninth Circuit may just end up overruling the three-judge panel en banc. Only a few diehards seem willing to repeatedly defy the US Supreme Court after Pinholster--namely, Reinhardt, Pregerson and Paez (and Detrich had the astounding luck to get two of them).
    I cannot ever recall Reinhardt upholdin a death sentence. On the contrary, I can't ever recall O'Scannlain voting to grant relief.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •