Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: James Mammone III - Ohio Death Row

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

    James Mammone III - Ohio Death Row


    Margaret Eakin

    Macy and James Mammone IV





    Summary of Offense:

    Mammone was convicted of aggravated murder and other charges for the June 8, 2008 murders of his two children and his former mother-in-law. The twelve jurors recommended death for Mammone III, then 36, of Canton, who killed his children, Macy, 5, and James IV, 3, and their maternal grandmother, Margaret Eakin. It was a unanimous decision, announced around 4:35 p.m. There were sounds of sniffles. Family members embraced Mammone’s ex-wife, Marcia Eakin, and his mother, Gilise Mammone. Mammone showed no reaction.

    Mammone was sentenced to death on January 22, 2010.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534
    January 23, 2010

    Judge Agrees With Jury, Death Penalty For Mammone

    CANTON, Ohio -- A judge decided that James Mammone will die for killing his two children and former mother-in-law.

    Judge John Haas went along with the jury’s recommendation Friday morning that Mammone be executed.

    Mammone stabbed his children, 3-year-old James and 5-year-old Macy, then shot his ex-mother-in-law, Margaret Eakin.

    Mammone did not apologize for the murders.

    After the sentencing, assistant prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett read a statement written by Marcia Eakin, Mammone’s ex-wife.

    "Soon the world will be rid of you and whether you remain locked in a cage like the animal you are, or ultimately succumb to the needle, know that your true judgment day awaits,” Hartnett read.

    Mammone’s execution date was scheduled for this June, but appeals will likely delay it for years.

    http://www.newsnet5.com/news/22313322/detail.html

  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Convicted killer James Mammone denied new trial

    A Stark County judge on Wednesday denied convicted killer James Mammone III’s request for a new trial.

    Mammone, 37, of Canton, has been on death row since early last year, when he was convicted of killing his two young children and his former mother-in-law.

    Mammone admitted to the killings and during his trial’s sentencing phase he gave a five-hour unsworn statement to the jury explaining his actions.

    Earlier this year, attorneys with the Ohio Public Defender’s Office argued for a new trial on several grounds.

    They faulted Mammone’s trial counsel for not requesting brain imaging on Mammone or an examination by a neuropsychologist. (Mammone was examined by a forensic psychologist.)

    They also said the trial attorneys didn’t properly question jurors during jury selection and failed to present evidence concerning the “arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory” imposition of the death penalty.

    Mammone’s new attorneys also alleged juror misconduct, saying that jurors prayed before deliberating on a sentence, and accused prosecutors of withholding drug-testing evidence that may have helped Mammone’s case.

    County prosecutors opposed Mammone’s request, saying he failed to raise any evidence that would change the outcome of his trial.

    Common Pleas Judge John G. Haas, who presided over the original trial, ruled that Mammone wasn’t entitled to a hearing on the issues raised and dismissed the request for a new trial.

    In his ruling, the judge wrote that Mammone failed to show that his constitutional rights had been denied or infringed upon.

    Mammone can appeal the ruling to the 5th District Court of Appeals.

    He also is pursuing a separate appeal of his conviction and sentence to the Ohio Supreme Court.

    http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x64...nied-new-trial

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    On Wednesday December 11, 2013 the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of James Mammone III v. State of Ohio. You can view oral argument beginning at 9:00 a.m. here

    Death Penalty

    James Mammone III v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2010-0576
    Stark County Court of Common Pleas

    Canton residents James Mammone III and Marcia Eakin married and had two children, Macy and James. Eakin later sought a divorce, which Mammone opposed. When Mammone became threatening, Eakin secured a protection order. Their divorce was finalized in April 2009.

    On June 7, 2009, Mammone picked up his children for a scheduled visitation. While they were sitting in their car seats in the back of his vehicle, Mammone fatally stabbed them. He then drove to his former in-laws’ house, where he beat and shot his ex-mother-in-law, Margaret Eakin, killing her. He traveled next to his ex-wife’s home, set fire to a truck and broke into the residence, but then left. Sometime later, he returned to his apartment where police arrested him.

    Mammone was convicted of the aggravated murders of his 5-year-old daughter, 3-year-old son, and former mother-in-law. Following the trial’s penalty phase, the court imposed the death sentence for each murder count.

    Mammone exercised his right to appeal his death sentence directly to the Ohio Supreme Court.

    In his appeal, Mammone’s attorneys have advanced nine claims of legal and procedural error during his trial as grounds for the court to reverse his convictions and death sentence and give him a new trial.

    Among the errors claimed, Mammone’s attorneys highlight these four issues:

    They contend that the trial court should have allowed the case to be heard in another location because an impartial jury could not be found in the Canton area. In addition to extensive coverage of the case on radio and television, and in newspapers, Mammone’s attorneys documented that the murders were the subject of numerous blogs, online chat rooms, and social media as well. Almost every juror had read about, had heard of, or had seen a news report about the case, they argue. Even so, the trial court ruled that Mammone could receive a fair trial because the jurors said that they could be fair and impartial. Citing two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Mammone’s attorneys assert that prejudice must be presumed in this case based on the volume of the adverse publicity. They claim the jurors could not put aside the opinions they had already formed, so Mammone was denied a fair trial.

    Mammone’s attorneys also assert that two jurors indicated during voir dire (the questioning of prospective jurors) that they were biased in favor of the death penalty, and the trial court should have removed them. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision Morgan v. Illinois (1992), they argue that a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is violated when a juror states that he or she favors the death penalty in every case in which a person is found guilty of capital murder. They also note that the Sixth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a defendant is entitled to relief when a biased juror is not excused.

    Attorneys for Mammone claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. They assert that Mammone’s lawyer did not adequately question potential jurors about their death penalty biases, the pretrial publicity, and their willingness to consider mitigating factors. During the penalty phase of the trial, they argue that his trial counsel failed to properly prepare Mammone’s mother and father for questioning and should have guided or limited a five-hour unsworn statement made by Mammone about his life and these offenses.

    Certain evidence, particularly photographs of the crime scene, were shown repeatedly, which Mammone’s attorneys contend inflamed the jury and denied their client a fair trial. They state that the jury was aware that Mammone did not dispute how he killed the victims, so the prosecution’s repeated display of several gruesome photographs of the crime scene and the autopsies was presented only for shock value and had no relevance to proving their case. Mammone’s attorneys maintain that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that courts must limit such photographs “so that they are not cumulative or repetitive and so that they only demonstrate the actual injuries sustained by the victim in order to minimize the risk of material prejudice at either the trial or the penalty phase.”

    Arguing for the state, attorneys from the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office make several responses.

    They counter that in the U.S. Supreme Court cases cited by Mammone’s attorneys, there was a sensationalism not present in this case. They also argue that there is no requirement that jurors need to be “completely ignorant” about a case to serve. Any concerns about a juror’s potential bias are properly dealt with during voir dire, they note. “Mammone was entitled to an impartial jury, not jurors that had never heard about his case,” they write in their brief. To presume prejudice against Mammone, the state’s attorneys argue that the case must be extreme, and that has not been established in this case.

    On the alleged death penalty bias by two jurors, the state’s attorneys respond that Mammone’s defense counsel at trial did not challenge those jurors for cause. In addition, the state argues that both jurors stated that they would follow the law and the court’s instructions and also consider any mitigating circumstances. There is no evidence that these two jurors would have automatically voted to impose the death penalty in this case, they conclude.

    Attorneys for the state maintain that Mammone’s trial counsel adequately represented Mammone. His lawyer may have been unopposed to the two jurors now described as being biased because the jurors said they thought that the murder of children and adults should be given equal weight and that mental issues may be a mitigating factor that counters the death penalty. Those views may have been seen strategically by Mammone’s attorney as favorable to the case. In addition, no evidence indicates that pretrial publicity tainted the jury, the jurors were fully aware that they were to consider mitigating circumstances, claims about Mammone’s parents being ill-prepared are speculation and do not demonstrate any prejudice, and Mammone’s five-hour statement essentially restated the confession Mammone gave to police and which the jury heard earlier in the trial.

    With regard to the photographs and other evidence presented during trial, the state responds that it must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of what he concedes during trial. The prosecution carefully picked and presented only the photographs and other evidence that were necessary to prove its case – only two of the 64 photos of the children as they were found in the car and 13 autopsy photos of the children out of more than 170 photos taken.

    Court notices, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
    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
    State v. Mammone

    In today's opinions, the Ohio Supreme Court AFFIRMED Mammone's convictions and sentence of death.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  6. #6
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Article

    Death penalty upheld for Ohio man who killed 3

    The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence of a Canton man who stabbed his young children to death and fatally shot his former mother-in-law two months after his wife divorced him.

    In a 6-1 decision, the court rejected arguments from James Mammone’s attorneys that graphic crime-scene photos were inflammatory and should never been shown to jurors, that intense publicity ruined his chances for a fair trial, and that two jurors who said they supported the death penalty should have been removed.

    On June 8, 2009, Mammone stabbed his 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son to death as they were strapped in their car seats in Canton. He then went to the home of his ex-wife’s mother, whom he severely beat and shot twice, killing her.

    In Wednesday’s majority opinion, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote that dozens of potential jurors said they didn’t know anything about the case, and regardless, the outcome of the trial would have been the same.

    Lanzinger also pointed to a letter that Mammone wrote to The Repository in Canton confessing to the killings, ruling that he was partially responsible for the publicity.

    In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O’Neill wrote that though the case challenged his resolve, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

    He wrote that Mammone should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz31iK5aK2a
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O’Neill wrote that though the case challenged his resolve, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

    He wrote that Mammone should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
    Justice William O'Neill should be removed from the Ohio Supreme Court.
    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
    State of Ohio v. James Mammone, III

    In today's opinions, the Ohio Supreme Court granted Mammone’s motion for stay of the execution scheduled for March 8, 2017. The court further ordered that the stay will remain in effect until all state postconviction proceedings are exhausted.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Mammone's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Ohio
    Case Nos.: (2010-0576)
    Decision Date: May 14, 2014
    Rehearing Denied: July 29, 2014
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

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

  10. #10
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On April 15, 2016, Mammone filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oh...cv00900/225117

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
  •