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

Thread: Scott Douglas Nordstrom - Arizona Death Row

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

    Scott Douglas Nordstrom - Arizona Death Row




    Facts of the Crime:

    On May 30, 1996, Scott Nordstrom and Robert Jones entered the Moon Smoke Shop in Tucson. Jones immediately shot a customer, Chip O'Dell, in the head. One employee escaped, two others were shot at by Jones behind the counter. Jones missed one and only injured the other.

    Another employee, Tom Hardman, was executed by Scott Nordstrom with two shots to the head. The gunmen took money and shared it with lookout David Nordstrom.

    On June 13, 1996, Scott Nordstrom and Robert Jones entered the Firefighters Union Hall in Tucson. Jones executed three customers, Carol Lynn Noel, and Judy and Arthur Bell, with shots to the head and took one of their wallets. Nordstrom shot and killed the bartender, Maribeth Munn, after she couldn't open a safe, and they took money from the cash register.

    The cases were solved when one of the parties contacted the police.

    Nordstrom was re-sentenced to death on August 27, 2009. Jones was also sentenced to death and eventually executed on October 23, 2013.

    For more information on Jones, see: http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/...zona-Death-Row

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534
    September 10, 2009

    Scott Nordstrom, killer of 6, gets death penalty

    TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) - The man convicted of killing 6 people in two separate robberies has been sentenced-- again-- to death row.

    Scott Nordstrom has maintained all along he didn't do it. He read from a prepared statement Tuesday to the court that detailed his innocence.

    Nordstrom was originally convicted in 1996 for killing 6 people in two separate armed robberies at the Moon Smoke Shop and Firefighters Union Hall.

    According to police, Nordstrom shot a bartender at the Firefighters Union Hall in the head when she failed to open the safe.

    Nordstrom's brother-- David Nordstrom-- was the getaway driver in the deadly robberies. He confessed to police in 1996.

    The original sentence of death for Scott Nordstrom was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2002 after judges ruled that juries, not judges could decide death penalty cases.

    http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11004922

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534
    September 29, 2009

    Man sentenced to die for 1996 murders gets additional prison term

    By Jim Becker
    KOLD

    For Rick and Leann Bell, the murders of their parents at the Firefighters Union Hall June 13, 1996 has only been the beginning.

    Each admits to battling substance abuse after the murders, and each wishes to move on from the case.

    Yet it goes on.

    Scott Nordstrom had earlier been sentenced to death for the shootings at the union hall and two others at the Moon Smoke Shop.

    Robert G. Jones, Jr., is also on death row for the killings.

    David Nordstrom, Scott's younger brother, received a lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony, testimony that played a key role in convicting the other two.

    In the case of the firefighter's hall, the killers left four dead bodies and took with them less than $800 in cash.

    In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, should impose the death penalty.

    A panel of Pima County jurors did just that in August, giving Nordstrom two death sentences.

    "Today was a complete waste of time and emotion for everybody," said Leann Bell, after the latest court hearing. "It's a waste of taxpayers' money for exactly the same result. It's going to continue to be a drain on the taxpayer's money and on the victims' time and emotion, coming in and out of this courtroom."

    Judge Richard Nichols ruled Nordstrom's death sentences should run consecutively and also added four life terms, each to run consecutively as well.

    Nordstrom's attorneys are appealing and asking the courts to overturn his convictions, something prosecutors say is unlikely, since the supreme court upheld the original jury's findings.

    Both Bell children are now advocates for homicide survivors, providing support to others who have lost loved ones to violence.

    "I'm starting to believe that it's an eye for an eye," said Rick. "If you kill, you deserve to be killed, and you should face the death penalty, and I think Arizona should make that happen a little bit faster. Let's put a fast lane in."

    http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11213654

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Ariz. high court to rule on appeal in Tucson case

    The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday plans to release its decision on the automatic appeal of a man's second death sentences for two 1996 murders in Tucson.

    Scott Nordstrom was sentenced to death for the killings of Thomas Hardman and Carol Lynn Noel.

    The 28-year-old Hardman and 50-year-old Noel died two weeks apart in the summer 1996 robberies of a smoke shop and a union hall.

    Nordstrom was sentenced to death originally for those murders and four others, but his original death sentences were overturned on appeal.

    Prosecutors then sought the death penalty in 2 of the cases. He was sentenced to no-release life sentences for the four other fatal shootings.

    http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19...in-tucson-case
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Death penalty upheld against Scott Nordstrom

    The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the death penalties imposed against Scott Nordstrom for shooting deaths in connection with a pair of 1996 robberies in Tucson.

    Justice Scott Bales, writing for the unanimous court, rejected a series of arguments Nordstrom presented which he said should have allowed him to escape being executed. These range from allegations of prosecutorial misconduct to denial of his due process.

    In Arizona, murder, by itself, does not permit someone to be sentenced to death. But Bales said there were other circumstances which made the death penalty appropriate in the case of two of the victims; he was sentenced to life without possibility of parole in the other four deaths.

    Nordstrom and Robert Jones were charged with killing two men while robbing the Moon Smoke Shop. Two weeks later, they shot and killed four people during a robbery at the Firefighters' Union Hall, a social club.

    Both had previously been sentenced to death.

    In 2002, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in another Arizona murder case, ruled it was improper for a judge alone to impose the death penalty. The nation's high court said defendants are entitled to make their case to a jury that there is evidence they should be spared execution.

    That gave Nordstrom a new chance to have his sentence reduced. But in 2009, jurors concluded he should die.

    In upholding the jury's decision, Bales said there was nothing wrong with showing them pictures of the bodies. The justice rejected arguments that the photos were designed only to inflame the jurors, saying they were entitled to see the murder scene.

    Both robberies were solved when Scott's brother, David Nordstrom, contacted police. He had been the driver in the getaway vehicle.

    Jones' death sentence imposed by a judge was upheld before that 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He remains on death row.

    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...a4bcf887a.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  6. #6
    Jan
    Guest
    In today's United States Supreme Court orders, Nordstrom's petition for writ of certiorari was DENIED.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...es/12-7296.htm

  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217

    Convicted Tucson killer Nordstrom to stay on death row

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to give Scott Nordstrom another chance to escape the death penalty.

    Without comment, the justices rejected his plea for a new sentencing in connection with his conviction of shooting deaths in connection with a pair of 1996 robberies in Tucson. That leaves Nordstrom on death row.

    Nordstrom was not challenging the conviction itself.

    Nordstrom and Robert Jones were charged with killing two men while robbing the Moon Smoke Shop. Two weeks later, they shot and killed four people during a robbery at the Firefighters' Union Hall, a social club. Both were sentenced to death.

    But in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in another Arizona murder case, said the death penalty cannot be imposed solely by a judge if a defendant objects. The justices said defendants are entitled to make their case for being spared to a jury.

    Despite that, jurors in 2009 concluded he should die.

    In his petition to the nation's high court, Nordstrom said it was wrong for the judge presiding over the resentencing to preclude him from introducing evidence from his original trial that he claimed would show his innocence. The judge in that case said such evidence is inadmissible for purposes of sentencing.

    The Arizona Supreme Court had already rejected Nordstrom's argument.

    Both robberies were solved when Scott's brother, David Nordstrom, contacted police. He had been the driver in the getaway vehicle.

    Jones' death sentence imposed by a judge was upheld before that 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He remains on death row.

    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...9bb2963f4.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  8. #8
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    SCOTT NORDSTROM V. CHARLES RYAN

    Court: Prison officials have no right to read inmate-attorney mail

    State prison officials have no right to read mail sent by inmates to their attorneys, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

    In a divided decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by the state Department of Corrections that they are entitled to read all mail — including legal correspondence — to ensure that they do not contain any contraband. The court said that can be done quite simply for outgoing mail by scanning the mail before an inmate seals it up, and for incoming mail by having a prison guard do the same, in front of the inmate, before handing over the letter.

    More to the point, the judges said security concerns do not require anyone in the prison to actually read the contents to be sure that the matters discussed are truly legal issues.

    Monday’s ruling is a legal victory for Scott Nordstrom, on death row in the prison system following two 1996 Tucson robberies that left four people dead.

    But Gregory Sisk, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, who handled the 9th Circuit appeal with his law students, said nothing in Monday’s ruling affects Nordstrom’s death sentence. Instead, he said, it may help Nordstrom work with his own criminal defense lawyer to overturn those convictions.

    Sisk said, though, the ruling is an important victory for prison inmates and their right to freely communicate with their attorneys.

    A spokesman for the Department of Corrections said the agency had no immediate comment.

    The policy at issue in this case permits prison employees to review letters from inmates to their attorneys. This is done in front of the inmate before he or she is permitted to seal up the envelope to be mailed out.

    Attorneys for the state argued this policy ensures that inmates can send letters to their lawyers — but only after they have been scanned to ensure that the contents are, in fact, legal matters. But Judge Barry Silverman, writing for the majority, said that is both unnecessary and illegal.

    Silverman conceded that courts are not always the best place to second-guess how prisons should be run.

    “Nonetheless, prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from then protections of the Constitution,” he wrote. And Silverman said courts will intervene when a prison regulation or practice offends a fundamental constitutional guarantee.”

    And in this case, Silverman said, the practice violates an inmate’s Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

    “A criminal defendant’s ability to communicate candidly and confidentially with his lawyer is essential to his defense,” Silverman wrote. “It is obvious to us that a policy or practice permitting prison officials to not just inspect or scan, but to (ITALICS) read (ROMAN) an inmate’s letters to his counsel his highly likely to inhibit the sort of candid communications that the right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege are meant to protect.”

    Silverman also brushed aside the contention by attorneys for the state that prison officials are doing nothing wrong because they are reviewing the mail, both incoming and outgoing, in the inmate’s presence.

    “They fail to explain how that practice ameliorates the chilling effect likely to result from an inmate’s knowledge that every word he writes to his lawyer may be intercepted by prison guards and possibly used against him,” the judge wrote. Silverman said the whole idea of requiring an inmate to be present when legal mail is opened is “designed to (ITALICS) prevent (ROMAN) officials from reading the mail in the first place.”

    Judge Jay Bybee dissented.

    “In my view, the Sixth Amendment does not prevent prison officials from reading legal letters with an eye toward discovering illegal conduct,” he wrote. Anyway, Bybee said, Nordstrom has never shown he actually was harmed by the practice.

    http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sta...9bb2963f4.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  9. #9
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Court revives death-row inmate’s complaint that prison reads his mail

    By Julianne Defilippis
    Cronkite News

    WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ordered a new hearing for an Arizona death-row inmate who said prison officials violated his constitutional right to counsel by reading a letter he sent to his attorney.

    Arizona Department of Corrections policy allows officers to inspect inmate mail for contraband and for what the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called “such suspicious features as maps of the prison yard, the times of the guards’ shift changes and the like.”

    But death-row inmate Scott Nordstrom said a guard went beyond scanning his letter to his attorney, which was clearly marked “legal mail,” and read the letter. That forced him “to cease conveying critically sensitive information … to his attorney,” violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, he said.

    A divided three-judge panel of the appeals court agreed. Even though prison is “a tough place” and officials have good reason to inspect prisoners’ mail, they said Aug. 11, “inspecting letters and reading them are two different things.”

    “What prison officials don’t have the right to do is read a confidential letter from an inmate to his lawyer,” the court said.

    It reversed a U.S. District Court judge’s decision to throw out the case and ordered the lower court to consider Nordstrom’s complaint.

    But in a dissenting opinion that was longer than the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee said prison officials are not prohibited from reading legal letters “with an eye toward discovering illegal conduct.”

    He also said Nordstrom had not shown any injury from the fact that a guard “on one occasion during his 17-year incarceration … read a single letter” to the inmate’s attorney.

    “To protect individuals in and outside the prison, prison officials must be allowed to read legal letters to the extent necessary to detect illegal conduct,” Bybee wrote. “By preventing reading in this limited sense, the majority has hamstrung prison officials’ ability to do their job.”

    The Arizona Attorney General’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

    But an attorney who was working on Nordstrom’s case welcomed the majority opinion.

    “He (Nordstrom) just wants to prevent this from happening again,” said Gregory Sisk, a professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law who supervised two law students who argued on behalf of Nordstrom.

    Several organizations submitted friend of the court briefs, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Arizona Capital Representation Project and the Equal Justice Initiative, among others. Sisk said he was “very thankful for that support.”

    Nordstrom and Robert Jones were convicted in connection with a string of murder-robberies in the Tucson area in 1996. Nordstrom was convicted in 1997 and sentenced to death.

    His co-defendant, Jones, was also convicted and was executed on Oct. 23, 2013.

    Sisk said there is a short period during which the state can challenge the ruling, but once the ruling is finalized the case will be sent back to district court with a mandate to hear it.

    He noted that the appeals court only ruled on the lower court’s dismissal and did not address the merits of Nordstrom’s claims.

    “He would have to establish that the correctional officers actually did read his letter,” Sisk said, once the case goes back to district court.

    http://www.wmicentral.com/news/apach...a4bcf887a.html

  10. #10
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In Death Row Inmate’s Appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Call Out Quality of Briefs by St. Thomas Law Students

    The Appellate Clinic at the University of St. Thomas School of Law—with third-year students Bridget Duffus and Katherine Koehler, and supervised by Professor Gregory Sisk—worked this year on a continuing challenge by a death row inmate in Arizona to the prison’s policy of skimming the contents of letters prisoners write to their lawyers. The clinic’s case was submitted with oral argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on January 11.

    At the end of the argument, the judges commended the University of St. Thomas on the quality of the briefs filed on the pro bono appeal, with one of the judges saying they were “better briefs than a whole lot of briefs we get from people being paid for it.”

    Watch the entire oral argument below.




    http://www.stthomas.edu/news/death-r...-law-students/
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

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
  •