Sections

Courtroom Cases: Teacher Overview

This teacher overview describes the actu­al court­room cas­es and the poten­tial juror qual­i­fy­ing sur­vey Web site con­tent. Jump to” links with­in each descrip­tion jump direct­ly to that part of this site, or you can return to this top menu.

Would You Be Chosen to Serve on a Jury?

(jump to this section)

This one-item sur­vey is actu­al­ly admin­is­tered to poten­tial jurors in cap­i­tal cas­es. It may serve as a means to stim­u­late class dis­cus­sion and lead into the four cas­es pro­vid­ed on the site. It pro­vides stu­dents with five pos­si­ble posi­tions on the sen­tence of death, rang­ing from I would always vote for the death penal­ty” to I would nev­er vote for the death penal­ty.” Reasons for why they would or would not be per­mit­ted to be a juror on a cap­i­tal case are also provided.

Four Courtroom Cases

While the death penal­ty debate involves many issues and data, it is also involves real cas­es. This cur­ricu­lum seeks to give stu­dents a sense of how the death penal­ty is applied by sum­ma­riz­ing four rep­re­sen­ta­tive cas­es below. The even­tu­al out­comes, which the stu­dents will learn lat­er, are diverse: one inmate was not sen­tenced to death, two have already been exe­cut­ed, and one inmate was freed when his con­vic­tion was overturned.

Students will receive their first expe­ri­ence of the tri­al process by answer­ing ques­tions which may lead to their exclu­sion or inclu­sion on a cap­i­tal case jury. But regard­less of whether they would actu­al­ly be cho­sen for the jury, they can review the facts in the cas­es which fol­low and decide how they would vote, and why.

The cas­es are based on actu­al death penal­ty tri­als that took place in four dif­fer­ent states around the coun­try. No case was cho­sen to demon­strate a sin­gle point. Rather cas­es were cho­sen because they embod­ied many death penal­ty issues which would like­ly result in further discussion.

Some of the issues in the cas­es are under­stat­ed and may be noticed only by one or two stu­dents. It would cer­tain­ly be appro­pri­ate to encour­age fur­ther research into such an issue and dis­cuss how it may have played a role in the ulti­mate deci­sion reached in the case. For exam­ple, a stu­dent may rec­og­nize that in a par­tic­u­lar case the defen­dant was black and the vic­tim was white. There may be noth­ing else said in the brief descrip­tion pro­vid­ed about how race may play a role in cap­i­tal cas­es, but that is fair ground for debate, espe­cial­ly if the stu­dents find broad fac­tu­al data to sup­port their asser­tion in the par­tic­u­lar case before them.

Besides the wide vari­ety of issues that may arise in each case, it is hoped that there will be dis­cus­sion of what the four cas­es togeth­er say about the prac­tice of the death penal­ty. No four cas­es can be tru­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of how cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is applied in the United States, but once the stu­dents have read the final out­comes in these cas­es, they will be bet­ter pre­pared to dis­cuss such questions as:

  • In what kinds of cas­es is the death penalty pursued?
  • Can you pre­dict the out­come of a death penal­ty case by read­ing the facts of the crime?
  • Does the jury always have all the facts it needs to ade­quate­ly decide the sentence?
  • Who is respon­si­ble for bring­ing impor­tant evi­dence before the jury? What should hap­pen if those respon­si­ble do a poor job?
  • What kind of evi­dence is used to obtain a con­vic­tion; what kind is used to deter­mine the ultimate sentence?
  • Is it fair that dif­fer­ent defen­dants receive dif­fer­ent sen­tences for similar crimes?

We have omit­ted descrip­tions of the even­tu­al out­come from the stu­dent ver­sion of the Death Penalty Information Web site because read­ing the out­comes at the same time stu­dents read about the case could lim­it dis­cus­sion. The out­comes are pro­vid­ed for teachers here:

Case 1: Lesley Gosch

(jump to this section)

Lesley Gosch was con­vict­ed of cap­i­tal mur­der and sen­tenced to death. He was grant­ed last-minute reprieves of his exe­cu­tion on two occa­sions. His attor­neys on appeal claimed that Gosch’s tri­al was unfair because wit­ness Stephen Hurst had giv­en the jury the false impres­sion that he was not inter­est­ed in the reward mon­ey when he tes­ti­fied. They also main­tained that the tri­al attor­neys should have pre­sent­ed a stronger case that Gosch was not the shoot­er in this mur­der. Just pri­or to his exe­cu­tion, his attor­neys chal­lenged the clemen­cy process in Texas, which ini­tial­ly is han­dled by a Board which does not con­duct open meet­ings or allow review of its deci­sion-mak­ing. Gosch was exe­cut­ed on April 24, 1998. He had no final state­ment and made no eye con­tact with Amy Grammer, the daugh­ter of the woman he was con­vict­ed of killing.

After the tri­al, Stephen Hurst was paid the $100,000 reward offered by the banks. John Rogers received a prison term of 45 years.

Case 2: Kenneth French

(jump to this section)

The jury delib­er­at­ed for two and a half days to deter­mine the sen­tence. At that time, the jury report­ed that it was hope­less­ly dead­locked. They unan­i­mous­ly found the exis­tence of two aggra­vat­ing fac­tors (risk of death to more than one per­son, and mur­der in the course of vio­lent con­duct). They were able to agree that the mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence did not out­weigh the aggra­vat­ing evi­dence, but were unable to agree on whether French should be sen­tenced to death. Upon deter­min­ing that the jury was dead­locked, the court imposed a sen­tence of four con­sec­u­tive terms of life impris­on­ment for the mur­ders, and addi­tion­al time to be served con­sec­u­tive­ly for the other offenses.

French filed a notice of appeal and remains incar­cer­at­ed in North Carolina.

Case 3: Dennis Stockton

(jump to this section)

Stockton was found guilty of the mur­der of Kenny Arnder and sen­tenced to death in 1983. Prior to his tri­al, the pros­e­cu­tors had offered to rec­om­mend against a death sen­tence if Stockton tes­ti­fied against Tommy McBride, who alleged­ly made the offer to have Arnder killed. Stockton refused the pros­e­cu­tor’s deal, say­ing he nev­er heard McBride make any offer.

During his years on death row, there was a major escape by six inmates. From his own diary, it was clear that Stockton had been involved in the ear­ly plan­ning of the escape, but had backed out before it was attempt­ed. Stockton had always main­tained his inno­cence of the crime that sent him to death row, and he hoped his appeals would free him.

Stockton’s chief accuser at tri­al, Randy Bowman, recant­ed his tes­ti­mo­ny to a reporter in 1995. At that time, Bowman stat­ed he nev­er heard Stockton say he would kill Arnder when offered the $1,500. Later, police inves­ti­ga­tors vis­it­ed Bowman, and he took back his recan­ta­tion. The Virginia and fed­er­al courts denied all of Stockton’s appeals, many of which claimed new evi­dence. At least three peo­ple sub­mit­ted affi­davits claim­ing that Bowman had bragged about killing Arnder. There was also evi­dence that Bowman had been giv­en a deal for tes­ti­fy­ing against Stockton. The police, how­ev­er, pro­duced evi­dence that Bowman was in jail when Arnder was killed and main­tained that no deal had been made with Bowman.

Stockton was exe­cut­ed by lethal injec­tion in 1995. Tommy McBride was arrest­ed but nev­er tried in con­nec­tion with the mur­der. The North Carolina author­i­ties declined to pros­e­cute the case because they did not believe they had enough evi­dence to con­vict any­one of murder.

Case 4: Walter McMillian

(jump to this section)

The jury vot­ed 7 – 5 in favor of a life sen­tence for Walter McMillian. However, in Alabama the judge can over­ride the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion. Judge Robert E. Lee Key decid­ed to sen­tence McMillian to die in the elec­tric chair for the mur­der of Ronda Morrison. At sen­tenc­ing, McMillian again pro­claimed his inno­cence, say­ing, I’d like for the girl’s par­ents to know that I did not kill their daughter.”

McMillian’s defense was even­tu­al­ly tak­en over by the Alabama Resource Center, which dis­cov­ered that two of the wit­ness­es had been giv­en favor­able treat­ment in crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions and reward mon­ey for their tes­ti­mo­ny against McMillian, and that this infor­ma­tion had not been revealed to the jury. Ralph Myers told the defense that he had been forced to make false accu­sa­tions against McMillian. Moreover, it was dis­cov­ered that McMillian had not con­vert­ed his truck to a low-rid­er” until six months after the mur­der, thus under­cut­ting the tes­ti­mo­ny of those who claimed to see his truck at the crime scene. McMillian’s con­vic­tion was even­tu­al­ly over­turned, and the pros­e­cu­tion agreed to drop all charges. McMillian was freed in 1993 after near­ly six years on death row.