Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of April 122021

NEWS (4/​16/​21) — Tennessee: The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the death sen­tence imposed in the May 2016 retri­al of Michael Rimmer for the mur­der of his ex-girl­friend in 1997.

Rimmer’s death sen­tence had ini­tial­ly been over­turned by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in 2001 because the jury had improp­er­ly con­sid­ered both the mur­der itself and a pri­or con­vic­tion for a non-vio­lent offense in sup­port­ing of an aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance that Rimmer had a pri­or his­to­ry of con­vic­tions for vio­lent felonies. After he was resen­tenced to death, Rimmer for the first time had an oppor­tu­ni­ty to chal­lenge his counsel’s per­for­mance in his orig­i­nal tri­al. As a result of that appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals over­turned Rimmer’s con­vic­tion, rul­ing that his lawyer had pro­vid­ed ineffective representation.

Rimmer was again con­vict­ed and for a third time sen­tenced to death in May 2016. The Tennessee Supreme Court reject­ed Rimmer’s claims that the sec­ond jury was pre­sent­ed an addi­tion­al felony mur­der charge that not been con­sid­ered at his first tri­al and ruled that alleged pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct in his first tri­al did not rise to the lev­el of bar­ring a retrial.


NEWS (4/​15/​21) — Florida: The Florida Supreme Court has upheld Michael Woodbury’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence for the mur­der of his cellmate.

Woodbury, who had a sig­nif­i­cant men­tal health his­to­ry, was per­mit­ted to rep­re­sent him­self with­out a men­tal health eval­u­a­tion to deter­mine his com­pe­ten­cy. After the pre­sen­ta­tion of the prosecution’s case, Woodbury took the stand, admit­ted to the hav­ing com­mit­ted the killing, and changed his plea to guilty. Woodbury again waived coun­sel in the penal­ty phase and, after a court grant­ed prosecutor’s request to appoint a men­tal health expert for poten­tial mit­i­ga­tion, chose not to present that doctor’s diag­noses that Woodbury had bipo­lar dis­or­der and schizophrenia.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled on appeal that Woodbury’s men­tal health his­to­ry and errat­ic behav­ior at tri­al did not pro­vide grounds for find­ing him incom­pe­tent to represent himself.


NEWS (4/​14/​21) — Texas: In a 6‑victim case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has over­turned Humberto Garza’s death sen­tence, find­ing his tri­al lawyers inef­fec­tive for fail­ing to inves­ti­gate and present exten­sive mitigating evidence.

Garza was rep­re­sent­ed at tri­al by Ralph R. Martinez, who was retained by Garza’s moth­er, and court-appoint­ed back-up coun­sel. Neither lawyer was on the cap­i­tal mur­der case appoint­ment list or had any expe­ri­ence try­ing a cap­i­tal case. Martinez failed to request the appoint­ment of a guilt-stage inves­ti­ga­tor or a mit­i­ga­tion spe­cial­ist and back-up coun­sel essen­tial­ly del­e­gat­ed the inves­ti­ga­tion to Garza’s moth­er.” Counsel failed to obtain edu­ca­tion­al, employ­ment, med­ical, and juve­nile records and inter­view wit­ness that doc­u­ment­ed Garza’s moth­er was being phys­i­cal­ly abused and drank heav­i­ly through­out her preg­nan­cy, Garza’s chron­ic expo­sure to seri­ous child­hood trau­ma — includ­ing that he and oth­ers in the house­hold had been repeat­ed­ly sex­u­al­ly abused — and that Garza had seri­ous men­tal health prob­lems, includ­ing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, untreat­ed Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Persistent Depressive Disorder that left him con­sid­er­ing sui­cide through­out his adolescence.

The tri­al court reject­ed Garza’s inef­fec­tive­ness claim, adopt­ing a 635-page draft find­ings of fact and con­clu­sions of law and a sep­a­rate 207-page sup­ple­men­tal find­ings of fact, con­clu­sions of law, and rec­om­men­da­tion to deny relief sub­mit­ted by the pros­e­cu­tion. The major­i­ty found that, had coun­sel ade­quate­ly inves­ti­gat­ed mit­i­ga­tion, there was a rea­son­able prob­a­bil­i­ty that at least one juror would have … vot[ed] to spare [Garza’s] life” and ordered that he be pro­vid­ed a new sentencing hearing.


NEWS (4/​12/​21) — California: In an 83-page direct review opin­ion ren­dered 21 years after tri­al, the California Supreme Court reject­ed all of the chal­lenges raised by Byron Wilson to his con­vic­tions and death sen­tences in a 1998 Los Angeles County quadruple murder.

Among oth­er claims, Wilson alleged that improp­er influ­ences had caused three jurors who ini­tial­ly vot­ed for life to change their sen­tenc­ing ver­dicts and that one of the jurors had com­mit­ted mis­con­duct by con­ceal­ing pri­or ser­vice on a death penal­ty jury. Wilson also alleged that the tri­al court had com­mit­ted reversible error by insuf­fi­cient­ly inves­ti­gat­ing juror mis­con­duct fol­low­ing dis­clo­sures that jurors had dis­cussed anoth­er mur­der case pri­or to voting.

Wilson’s appeal was ini­tial­ly con­sol­i­dat­ed with that of his co-defen­dant, Aswad Pops. However, Pops died on death row on August 29, 2019, which ren­dered his appeal legally moot.