Although Virginia jurors in the tri­al of Lee Boyd Malvo main­tained their cama­raderie dur­ing the six weeks of tri­al and delib­er­a­tions on whether he was guilty of cap­i­tal mur­der in one of a series of sniper shoot­ings, the group became sharply divid­ed when weigh­ing the ques­tion of whether to sen­tence the teen to death. The jury fore­man and a sec­ond mem­ber of the jury revealed that a core group of four jurors did not believe Malvo’s role in the mur­ders war­rant­ed the death penal­ty. They stat­ed that the debate between life and death destroyed the pre­vi­ous­ly cor­dial atmos­phere with­in the group. Juror Susan Schriever, who sup­port­ed a death sen­tence in the case, stat­ed, ​“I couldn’t under­stand how peo­ple sat in the same tri­al and didn’t feel the same way.” Juror James Wolfcale, a Virginia Beach pas­tor who also favored the death penal­ty for Malvo, said that he was sor­ry to see the friend­ships among the jurors quick­ly break down dur­ing the sen­tenc­ing phase. ​“I’m not sure I ever want to see them again,” said Wolfcale of the jurors who sup­port­ed a life sen­tence. Wolfcale said some of those who sup­port­ed a life sen­tence argued that the pun­ish­ment would be worse than a death sen­tence for the young defen­dant. (Washington Post, June 19, 2004) See Juvenile Death Penalty. See also, Life Without Parole.

Citation Guide