Tim Hancock became the first person in Ohio to face a jury seated only to decide whether to impose death or a life sentence. Initially, Tim had been convicted and sentenced to death; but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed his death sentence and ordered a new mitigation-phase trial. The second jury voted for life without parole.
Tim Hancock went to prison in 1990 after pleading guilty to Aggravated Murder, a charge reduced from a capital felony-murder of an elderly woman.
On November 13, 2000, Tim was in the Segregation Unit ("the hole") of the Protective Custody Unit in Warren Correctional Institution. He killed his cellmate nine hours after prison officials forced him to accept a cellie. A year later, a jury convicted him and signed a death verdict predicated on two specifications: prior purposeful murder; murder while in detention.
The judge rejected the death verdict after learning that jurors had trial-phase evidence with them during mitigation-phase deliberations that the judge had ruled off limits. He imposed LWOP. He did not override the death verdict based on an independent weighing of the aggravators against the mitigators.
The prosecutor appealed. The District Appellate Court ruled that the spat over the evidence did not give reason to reject the death verdict, and ordered the trial judge to either accept or reject the death verdict on the merits. The judge imposed death.
Tim appealed. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, but remanded for a new mitigation phase trial to clean up the mess.
Tim became the first person under Ohio's 1981 capital statutes to face a jury seated only to consider whether death was appropriate. His trial began with the jurors being told they were bound to accept the first jury's finding of guilt on Aggravated Murder with two capital specifications. That ended the State's case in chief.
Tim presented mitigation on three fronts: Tim suffered from a serious mental illness that influenced his conduct during the murder, even though it fell short of an insanity defense that the first jury rejected; the prison's hands were dirty for violating their double-celling policy; the victim contributed to the cycle of events that led to murder.
Tim is a an extremely volatile man caught in the grip of a mental illness that causes sweeping mood changes, pathological paranoia, and occasional psychotic symptoms. The defense psychologist labeled it Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar type, and Borderline Personality Disorder. The prosecution's psychiatrist labeled it Borderline Personality Disorder co-existing with strong evidence of malingering by faking auditory and visual hallucinations. Both agreed that Tim's fifteen year history of mental-health treatment in prison painted the picture of a person with significant mental illness.
Tim's prison records depicted a person intolerant of gay men and hostile towards child rapists. Nearly a decade before the murder, he told prison psychologists he'd been sexually victimized by older males when he was an adolescent; but he denied being a victim on several other occasions. Six years before the murder, he assaulted a cellie for making homosexual advances. The afternoon of the murder, officials forced him to cell with a notorious child rapist who actively engaged in prison sex. A couple of hours before the murder, Tim said the victim made a pass at him, spoke salaciously about how he raped a four year old girl, and described how he had duct-taped her to attic rafters then nailed shut the access panel.
With a combination of trickery and intimidation, Tim cajoled the victim into restraints on the top bunk by saying he wanted to feign an assault to gain a transfer to another prison. Once restrained, Tim told the victim he was going to kill him the way he had tried but failed to kill the little girl. Tim strangled him.
Tim told the police he killed the victim to retaliate against the prison for forcing him to double cell, because of the victim's crime, and because he made a pass.
In mitigation, we played Tim's taped confession to present evidence of how Tim described the victim's conduct in the cell, and to explain how Tim described his reasons for committing the murder. We presented a corrections expert to explain how the prison's double-celling decision violated Ohio policies and national standards. We called two inmates who witnessed Tim protesting the double-celling decision. We presented mental-health evidence from a psychologist who evaluated Tim and his records, and from a Social Worker who treated Tim for several months before the murder. We called the Chairperson of the Ohio Parole Board to testify that, but for Tim's second murder, he almost certainly would have been paroled on his first aggravated murder by the time was near fifty years old, which meant another life sentence would have a punitive impact.
The State's rebuttal worked to Tim's advantage. Their attempt to prove "reasonable compliance" with the double-celling policy sounded like an overly eager cover-up of a bad decision. Their psychiatrist corroborated the serious symptoms of Tim's mental illness despite the fact he disagreed with our expert's diagnosis. And we blocked them from challenging Tim's account of the victim's crimes. They got away with that argument during the first trial by calling Tim a liar whose words about the victim's alleged crimes could not be trusted. This time we stood ready to counter with court documents, police documents, and the testimony of the lead detective. The judge ruled this evidence inadmissible unless the prosecution opened the door by calling Tim a liar again. They kept quiet.
The jurors rejected death and imposed a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Mr. Hancock was represented at trial by OPD counsel Greg Meyers, Bill Mooney, and Rachel Troutman. He won the right to a new mitigation trial through the work of OPD counsel Joe Wilhelm, Kelly Culshaw, Rachel Troutman, Justin Thompson, and former OPD Wendi Dotson.
Inquiries about this case may be directed to Mr. Hancock's trial counsel, Greg Meyers, Bill Mooney, or Rachel Troutman. The Ohio Supreme Court's opinion may be accessed through the following link:
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-106
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-160.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment