Inmate appeals court for a new sentence

A Polk County man convicted of kidnapping and murdering his 12-year-old niece in 1999 should be resentenced because the original jury was improperly influenced by vivid testimony from the girl’s family members, his attorney told the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday.

Little Rock attorney Deborah Anne Czuba said Karl Roberts, who is being held on death row, deserves a new sentencing hearing because three witnesses called the crime an “evil and a brutal act.” The testimony pressured the jury into sentencing Roberts to death, she said.

“This emotional testimony undoubtedly carried great weight during the jury’s deliberations over what sentence to give Mr. Roberts,” Czuba said.

Roberts was sentenced to death in 2000 after he was convicted of capital murder in the slaying of 12-year-old Andi Brewer, whose body was recovered in a densely wooded area near Mena. Roberts confessed to Arkansas State Police investigators and described strangling his niece to death after driving her from her home and raping her near the Oklahoma state line.

For years after Roberts was sentenced, he had said that he wanted to die. He was scheduled to be executed in January 2004, but Roberts authorized his attorneys to appeal the sentence hours before he was dueto die.

A federal judge granted a stay that halted the execution.

Czuba told the court that Roberts’ waiver of his Rule 37 proceedings in 2003 should also be ruled invalid becausehe was mentally incompetent, despite being evaluated by several specialists. Under Rule 37, death-row inmates have the option of being given a new attorney, who will review the case. Frequently, the new attorneys argue that the old attorney was ineffective or incompetent - bad enough to prevent the killer from getting a fair hearing.

If the appeal is successful, it can result in a new trial.

Assistant Attorney General Laura Shue told the court that Roberts’ request to reopen his Rule 37 proceedings should be denied.

Associate Justice Paul E. Danielson asked if it was possible to know if Roberts was competent when he waived his proceedings since he did not have an attorney to raise that point. Shue said there was no question of Roberts’ competency because he had been evaluated by several mentalhealth specialists during and after his trial.

“There was no need for another evaluation. There was no need for an attorney, because he waived his attorney,” Shue said. Shue said the court should also deny Roberts’ request for re-sentencing because the witnesses’ testimony did not improperly inflame the jurors.

Roberts’ was the second capital punishment case heard by the court last month.

On Jan. 10, the court considered the death sentence of Brandon Eugene Lacy, who was sentenced to death for the 2007 murder of a man in Benton County. Lacy’s attorney argued that the condemned man should be granted a new trial so a jury could hear about his past substance abuse and mental defects.

Front Section, Pages 7 on 02/01/2013

Upcoming Events