Post by sclcookie on Jun 2, 2006 0:44:51 GMT -5
Appeals court denies killer's trial request
A death row inmates rights were violated, but the violation isn't enough
to warrant a new trial on mental retardation, according to the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals.
George Ochoa, 31, was sentenced to death for the murders of an Oklahoma
City couple in 1993.
According to prosecutors, Ochoa and co-defendant Osvaldo Torres parked
their car several blocks away from the home of 38-year-old Francisco
Morales and his common-law wife, 35-year-old Maria Yanez. Before walking
to the house, both men armed themselves with pistols. At about 2:40 a.m.
on July 12, 1993, they kicked open the door and went immediately to the
bedroom the couple shared, where 1 gun was used to shoot Morales and Yanez
at last 9 times each.
Prosecutors said Ochoa was the actual gunman, but that Torres participated
in the killings to gain status in a gang called the South Oklahoma City
Locos.
Both men were sentenced to death, but Torres' sentence was commuted to
life without the possibility of parole in 2004. Gov. Brad Henry commuted
his sentence after the Mexican government got involved shortly before a
scheduled execution date to protest that Torres had never been notified of
his Vienna Convention rights to contact the Mexican Consulate.
Basically, the Vienna Convention allows citizens of signatory countries to
contact their consulates for help in criminal cases if they are detained
in a country other than that of their home.
Torres was a Mexican national at time of the killings.
While Torres' attorneys were fighting to save his life using the Vienna
Convention route, Ochoas were saying their client was mentally retarded,
therefore ineligible for execution under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
said executing a mentally retarded person is unconstitutional.
The ruling left it up to individual states to determine how mental
retardation was determined, but used two generally accepted clinical
definitions - both of which require that mental retardation manifest
itself before the age of 18.
Ochoa asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to revisit its way of
determining mental retardation, saying the state should have to prove
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person is not mentally retarded. The
court declined, maintaining that it is up to a defendant to prove "by a
preponderance of the evidence" that he or she is mentally retarded.
A jury found Ochoa was not mentally retarded.
During a jury trial to determine mental retardation held in June 2005,
Ochoa refused to dress in civilian clothes but instead chose to wear an
orange jail jumpsuit. In addition, the court overseeing the jury trial
ordered Ochoa to wear a "shock sleeve," a device capable of incapacitating
an inmate, under his clothes.
Ochoa argued that since jurors saw him in jail clothes they were
prejudiced against him before any testimony was given at trial. He also
argued that the judge had violated his rights by forcing him to wear the
shock sleeve.
The appeals court said that although it would be unconstitutional for the
state to compel a person to wear jail clothing to trial, the fact that
Ochoa chose to wear the clothing could not be used to overturn the jury
verdict that he was not mentally retarded.
The court agreed that Ochoa should not have been forced to wear a shock
sleeve, but said that since the sleeve was not visible to jurors the
simple fact he had it on did not prejudice the jury against him.
Concern for that possibility is the reason jurors are not supposed to see
inmates in shackles, handcuffs or other restraints if at all possible.
Ochoa scored between 70 and 75 on standard IQ tests when he was first
incarcerated, but "IQ tests alone are not determinative of the issue of
mental retardation," the OCCA wrote.
His scores in 2003 are higher, since he learned to read and write while in
prison, according to court records.
(source: McAlester News-Capital)
A death row inmates rights were violated, but the violation isn't enough
to warrant a new trial on mental retardation, according to the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals.
George Ochoa, 31, was sentenced to death for the murders of an Oklahoma
City couple in 1993.
According to prosecutors, Ochoa and co-defendant Osvaldo Torres parked
their car several blocks away from the home of 38-year-old Francisco
Morales and his common-law wife, 35-year-old Maria Yanez. Before walking
to the house, both men armed themselves with pistols. At about 2:40 a.m.
on July 12, 1993, they kicked open the door and went immediately to the
bedroom the couple shared, where 1 gun was used to shoot Morales and Yanez
at last 9 times each.
Prosecutors said Ochoa was the actual gunman, but that Torres participated
in the killings to gain status in a gang called the South Oklahoma City
Locos.
Both men were sentenced to death, but Torres' sentence was commuted to
life without the possibility of parole in 2004. Gov. Brad Henry commuted
his sentence after the Mexican government got involved shortly before a
scheduled execution date to protest that Torres had never been notified of
his Vienna Convention rights to contact the Mexican Consulate.
Basically, the Vienna Convention allows citizens of signatory countries to
contact their consulates for help in criminal cases if they are detained
in a country other than that of their home.
Torres was a Mexican national at time of the killings.
While Torres' attorneys were fighting to save his life using the Vienna
Convention route, Ochoas were saying their client was mentally retarded,
therefore ineligible for execution under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
said executing a mentally retarded person is unconstitutional.
The ruling left it up to individual states to determine how mental
retardation was determined, but used two generally accepted clinical
definitions - both of which require that mental retardation manifest
itself before the age of 18.
Ochoa asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to revisit its way of
determining mental retardation, saying the state should have to prove
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person is not mentally retarded. The
court declined, maintaining that it is up to a defendant to prove "by a
preponderance of the evidence" that he or she is mentally retarded.
A jury found Ochoa was not mentally retarded.
During a jury trial to determine mental retardation held in June 2005,
Ochoa refused to dress in civilian clothes but instead chose to wear an
orange jail jumpsuit. In addition, the court overseeing the jury trial
ordered Ochoa to wear a "shock sleeve," a device capable of incapacitating
an inmate, under his clothes.
Ochoa argued that since jurors saw him in jail clothes they were
prejudiced against him before any testimony was given at trial. He also
argued that the judge had violated his rights by forcing him to wear the
shock sleeve.
The appeals court said that although it would be unconstitutional for the
state to compel a person to wear jail clothing to trial, the fact that
Ochoa chose to wear the clothing could not be used to overturn the jury
verdict that he was not mentally retarded.
The court agreed that Ochoa should not have been forced to wear a shock
sleeve, but said that since the sleeve was not visible to jurors the
simple fact he had it on did not prejudice the jury against him.
Concern for that possibility is the reason jurors are not supposed to see
inmates in shackles, handcuffs or other restraints if at all possible.
Ochoa scored between 70 and 75 on standard IQ tests when he was first
incarcerated, but "IQ tests alone are not determinative of the issue of
mental retardation," the OCCA wrote.
His scores in 2003 are higher, since he learned to read and write while in
prison, according to court records.
(source: McAlester News-Capital)