Supreme Court likely to uphold Isom death sentence
INDIANAPOLIS - The five justices of the Indiana Supreme Court reacted skeptically Thursday to claims that judicial and prosecutorial mistakes allegedly made during Kevin Isom's death-penalty trial rise to the level of fundamental error and warrant a new trial.
Last year, a Lake County jury found Kevin Isom, now 48, guilty of three counts of murder for the 2007 shootings of his wife, Cassandra Isom, 40; and stepchildren, Michael Moore, 16, and C'Andria Cole, 13, in the family's Gary home.
Lake Superior Judge Thomas Stefaniak Jr. condemned Isom to three consecutive death sentences, which the jury recommended. Isom's execution is on hold while his appeal is pending.
Mark Bates, the Schererville attorney representing Isom, argued to the Supreme Court that Stefaniak erred during testimony in the penalty phase of the trial by not asking Erica Washington, Cassandra's sister, a question submitted by a juror about whether the family had forgiven Isom.
"I suggest that is a powerful mitigator," Bates said, adding that the jury might not have unanimously approved the death penalty, and, instead, recommended life without parole or another sentence, if the victims' family had forgiven Isom.
But Justice Steven David and Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, both noted that's a pretty big "if," since no one knows whether the family forgave Isom. The other justices appeared to agree.
David also pointed out that the juror's question really can't be answered because no one person can speak for the victims' family; different people understand forgiveness differently, and even if the family forgave Isom they still might believe he deserves the death penalty.
Bates then argued the prosecutor "crossed the line" during the penalty phase when he described the brutal nature of Isom's shootings, instead of limiting his remarks to proving Isom was death penalty-eligible.
While David admitted that was unusually tough talk for a prosecutor, he believed it was a fair response to the defense's portrayal of Isom as a man who loved his family.
In any case, David said he doubts the potential error was a fundamental error that made it impossible for Isom to receive a fair trial.
Bates acknowledged the failure of Isom's trial defense counsel to object to either the judge's or prosecutor's actions -- thus waiving them for appellate review -- required him to try to meet the much higher standard of proving fundamental error.
Nevertheless, Bates argued those two points, combined with six more in his written arguments to the court, require the justices to reduce Isom's sentence, or order a new trial.
Deputy Attorney General Kelly Miklos told the justices the actions of the judge and prosecutor were proper throughout the trial.
She said the potential errors Bates identified in no way rise to the level of fundamental error, and urged the court to respect the death sentence recommended by the jury.
The Supreme Court likely will issue its ruling by the end of the year.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/l...a467f7126.html
Bookmarks