Robinson's argument is founded in part on statutory construction and application of caselaw under Kansas' capital sentencing scheme. 223410 and K.S.A. The State argued K.S.A. at 2759 (Breyer, J., dissenting). 659 F.2d at 1312. During the search of Robinson's residence, law enforcement officers seized a number of incriminating items, including books on creating false identities; a Home Depot credit card bearing the name James A. Turner; IRS Form 1099 statements for Sheila and Debbie Faith; Roadway Inn receipts with Lisa Stasi written on them, reflecting payment for lodging in January 1985; an IRS form signed by Beverly J. Bonner; documents identifying James Turner and John Robinson as affiliated with Equity Financial Group and HydroGro, Inc.; papers and handwritten notes with e-mail addresses associated with the victims and their families; and e-mail communications between Trouten and Robinson. 222401a(5). On June 14, 2000, Judge Anderson appointed Kansas' Death Penalty Defense Unit (DPDU) to represent Robinson. At this point, she disappeared. Robinson was involved in the lives of both of Christys children and babysat them on a regular basis while their parents were at work. Norman received another letter the following December. Dahl testified the number of respondents in each county was statistically sufficient to extrapolate results to the general population within a 5 percent margin of error in Johnson County and 7 to 8 percent margin in the control counties. Thomas' Withdrawal and Second Motion for Continuance. Young also testified Sheila Faith had sustained a fracture to her right ulna at a point located close to her wrist. Robinson believes the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial after witness Loretta Mattingly failed to testify in accordance with the prosecutor's proffer. The child fell ill and died, and Robinsons mother blamed him for the death. Robinson contends that the two takings constitute multiple acts, and therefore, the district judge should have compelled the State to elect a single theory of taking to submit to the jury or provided the jury with a special unanimity instruction requiring jurors to agree unanimously on the criminal act constituting the taking. Particularly, Robinson believes he was prejudiced by misstatements of the law concerning mitigating circumstances during voir dire, improper cross-examination of mitigation witnesses, and the prosecutor's closing argument remarks. Robinson claimed that Stasi and Tiffany left with a young Caucasian male in an older model green car. The law specifies when the death penalty is appropriate. The State objected, arguing defense counsel was improperly staking out jurors (staking jurors is the practice of asking case-specific questions designed to commit prospective jurors to a particular vote or to disclose how they would vote when faced with certain case-specific facts). 222401a, and Judge Anderson erred in refusing to suppress evidence derived from such activity. 214627(c)(2). On the second day of the evidentiary hearing, continued to March 6, 2002, the defense played 2 hours of televised news coverage of the case broadcast within the first 2 weeks of the discovery of bodies on Robinson's Linn County property in June 2000. Also, as Judge Anderson explained, conflicts and other matters giving rise to the withdrawal of counsel are not unforeseeable, casting further doubt on the reasonableness of defense counsels' reliance on this division of labor. The State intended to introduce this testimony to rebut the defense's evidence that the Johnson County Detention Center allowed Robinson to have contact visits with his grandchild, giving rise to the inference that they shared a special relationship. In essence, the prosecutor made himself an eyewitness and an expert witness who was not subject to the rules of evidence or cross-examination. Despite everything, Nancy testified that she still shared a bond with Robinson and that it would continue if the jury spared his life.. For example, in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 72223, 81 S.Ct. Trouten's niece, her grandmother, and her father received similar letters postmarked May 19 from Veracruz, Mexico. The Internet's First Serial Killer: John Edward Robinson, The 'Internet The second element requires that these killings be part of the same act or transaction or multiple acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 50001, 731 P.2d 842 (Unless we are to assume that (1) the jurors selected to try the defendant violated their oath when they swore that they could give the defendant a fair trial or (2) an individual can commit a crime so heinous that news coverage generated by that act will not allow the perpetrator to be brought to trial, the defendant has not established substantial prejudice.), cert. I misspoke. I think we all know the answer to that question; don't we? The court may simply purge the panel by discharging those individuals not qualified.). Defense counsel asked what had happened, believing Juror 147 was one of the veniremembers who had been excused for failing to appear on the first day of jury selection. They're entitled to know it and you said to almost all of them, Do you know what the factual allegations are? The process that we went through the other day did produce numbers of jurors who said they just didn't think there was anything that was going to convince them not to vote for the death penalty because of the factual allegations of the case. Robinson shared stories of his BDS&M liaisons with Carlos Ibarra, a maintenance employee at Santa Barbara Estates, and showed him nude photographs of a girlfriend depicted in BDS&M poses, the court records say. Although the majority's characterization of the capital murder charges comports with a fair reading of the State's complaint, it is not supported by the plain language of the capital murder statute. The State admitted numerous letters that Robinson, posing as the victim, sent to the victims' families, including a letter to Stasi's mother-in-law. The State acknowledged the district judge's position and took affirmative steps to comply with it. First, an appellate court decides whether the comments were outside the wide latitude that a prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. Nowhere else in the instructions does it matter where the prosecution may be, and it is reasonable to believe that a juror would conclude that issue had long since been decided. Did the prosecutor improperly question Nancy Robinson about the infant? 222616 contrary to the Sixth Amendment; (3) finding voir dire eliminated those with bias; (4) failing to acknowledge the media's interference with proceedings; and (5) failing to acknowledge jurors' failure to abide by admonitions. 222401a(2). The trial court excused Juror 173 and entertained challenges against the remaining panelists. denied 520 U.S. 1213 (1997); Wilson, 493 F.Supp.2d at 405 (allowing voir dire on specific types of mitigation or aggravation evidence does not serve the goal of uncovering impermissible bias, but only beg[s] follow-up questions that trend toward stake-out or pre-commitment questions). 60401(b). K.S.A. Of course it is. 214625(2), which provides that [a]ggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following: (2) The defendant knowingly or purposely killed or created a great risk of death to more than one person.. There, the prosecutor asked a series of questions of the defense investigator as to why he did not prepare a written report. He is reported to have slain eight women between 1984 and 2000 (via Murderpedia ). The prosecutor's description of mitigating circumstances as those that diminish the moral culpability of the offense is entirely consistent with the definition set forth in Kleypas. As such, Robinson's reliance on Zant is misplaced. at 2757 (Breyer, J., dissenting). During the second phase of jury selection, the district judge, consistent with the recommendation of Robinson's expert, Dillehay, assigned veniremembers to small group panels consisting of six members and allowed counsel for the parties to question them extensively on pretrial publicity and death penalty topics. The appellate court must also determine whether the material fact is disputed, i.e., the element or elements being considered must be substantially at issue in the case. When Lewicka responded to the e-mails, her tone was consistently abrasive and short, asking her father, What the hell do you want [? John Robinsons wife, Nancy Robinson, testified on his behalf at his trial. He then got a job at a Chicago hospital. With the agreement of the parties, the trial court conducted jury selection in four phases. John Edward Robinson Chelsea Shields . 222516(1)(c). When asked whether he could realistically consider a life sentence for intentional, premeditated, special circumstances murder, Juror 184 said that it depended on the trial judge's instructions on the law and that he could go either way. Juror 184 later said he would probably lean toward the death penalty following a conviction for this particular capital murder, which presumed a conviction for capital murder, along with multiple murders, without any competing mitigation. That hurts the credibility of the defense attorneys who have had the responsibility of trying to convince this jury to spare Mr. Robinson's life. When Juror 41 suggested she would automatically vote for the death penalty regardless of the circumstances, prosecutor Morrison provided a hypothetical comparing two contract killings: one where a drug dealer contracted the murder of a police officer and the other where a sexually abused woman contracted the murder of her abuser. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) ]. Williams, 553 U.S. at 30506. In contrast, Carolyn Trouten did not address the subject of Stapleton's testimony during her direct or cross-examination, and therefore, his testimony regarding Carolyn Trouten's declarations were not admissible under K .S.A. Comments with Potential Impact on Defendant's Constitutional Rights. Nor is it evidence he intended to offer a precise, legal definition of the term in his questioning. As a small child, Robinson grew deeply attached to his infant brother. Lewicka occupied the Edgebrook Apartment, and Robinson paid the rent. The parties put on evidence in support of their penalty phase cases on October 31, 2002, and the cause was submitted to the jury on November 1, 2002. 222401a(5). Likewise, to the extent Robinson's challenge requires the court to interpret the statutory requirements of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, the issue presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Carr, 300 Kan. at 69. The message said Trouten had written to her mother, that she had left on her trip, that she would not have online access for some time, and that she would try to stay in touch when possible. Lowther described finding five computers in the Robinson's three-bedroom mobile home. denied 134 S.Ct. The State alleged, pursuant to K.S.A. Harris does not require a short time span or a common motive to establish a common scheme or course of conduct. 2. However, courts have not found jurors' use of the Bible during deliberations to be immune to curative instruction. The prosecutor's inquiry was proper. "May I see these?" The prosecutor's description of mitigating circumstances was consistent with Kansas law. Within days after his arrest, authorities searched Robinson's 16-acre property near La Cygne, Kansas, and a rented storage unit in Raymore, Missouri. A neutral explanation should be given, and the jury should be instructed that the use of numbers instead of names should in no way be interpreted as a reflection of the defendant's guilt or innocence. State v. Brown, 280 Kan. 65, 74, 118 P.3d 1273 (2005). I agree with the decision reached by the majority and the analysis Justice Stegall has written for the court. } else if ( host.indexOf("asia.cnn.com") != -1 ) { She became so upset that the family arranged special contact visits, with the approval of sheriffs department personnel, while Robinson was in jail awaiting trial. Given the deference owed to the trial court, the controlling question on appeal is not whether we agree with the district judge's ruling on the challenge for cause but, instead, whether it is fairly supported by the record. Thus a magistrate lacks neutrality and detachment where the circumstances offer a possible temptation to the average man [or woman] as a judge or which might lead him [or her] not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused. 429 U.S. at 250. See Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 517; see also DeLuna, 763 F.2d at 908 (magistrate's knowledge from prior investigation of defendant would not cause a reasonable person to believe he was unable to impartially assess the existence of probable cause); People v. Curkendall, 12 A.D.3d 710, 714, 783 N .Y.S.2d 707 (no merit in claim that judge's former prosecution of defendant 14 years earlier on similar offense violated due process), leave to appeal denied 4 N.Y.3d 743 (2004). Nancy Robinson stated that she bathed the baby and her brother and sister-in-law came to pick it up the next day. See Cox v. State, 197 Kan. 395, 405, 416 P .2d 741 (1966) (the crime of kidnapping in the second degree is complete when without lawful authority a person is forcibly seized with intent to secretly confine the person in this state against his or her will); K.S.A. 59 Cal.4th at 82628. Specifically, Robinson contends the district judge erred in fact, thereby burdening the right to counsel of choice, by: (1) finding that Robinson had discharged the DPDU; (2) minimizing the burden defense counsel experienced in managing discovery; and (3) failing to account for the delay caused by the State's tardy and disorganized DNA testing disclosures. After the retirement of the civil judge who had historically handled these matters, Judge McClain began receiving the applications because he was a civil judge who had familiarity with criminal law. On September 1, a $500 check payable to Specialty Publications was drawn on Lewicka's account, leaving an available balance of $1. 222503 was a response to its earlier approval of K.S.A. Defense counsel objected, explaining the presumption of innocence allows jurors to believe defendant is not guilty unless or until proven otherwise. Glines received a package containing three pastel-colored envelopes from Robinson on March 27. Did admission of the e-mails violate the best evidence rule? These efforts have facilitated our determination that the sentence of death was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; that the State's lone aggravating circumstance existed; and that Robinson's mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh it. Cunningham admitted, however, that he did not speak to KDOC officials regarding their policy and did not know definitively whether Robinson would have Internet access in its facilities. Kansas City Department of CorrectionsJohn Robinson. However, [n]ot every restriction on counsel's time or opportunity to investigate or to consult with his client or otherwise to prepare for trial violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11, 103 S.Ct. Faced with far more egregious misconduct, where the Bible was in the jury room and used collaboratively as a resource by jurors during deliberations, courts have found such mitigating factors sufficient to rebut claims of prejudice. On February 25, 2000, Robinson sent Trouten an e-mail message requesting login and password information for all of her e-mail accounts. After signing the documents, Donald gave Robinson a $3,000 cashiers check payable to Doug Wood, allegedly for further adoption expenses. [Citation omitted. I don't think I have anythingany preconceived conclusion of what the penalty should be or what the verdict should be or anything like that. Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's use of the term recommendation to describe the jury's sentencing decision, arguing it violated Caldwell. The statute requires two or more acts that are requisite to the commission of the crime. In an effort to define common scheme or course of conduct, Robinson examines characteristics or factors present in other cases found to satisfy the requirements of K.S.A. To the extent facts or circumstances were common to both cases here, they were not sufficient to cause a reasonable person to question Judge McClain's ability to fairly assess the probable cause issue in the various applications for pen registers, wiretap orders, and search warrants. Robinson reasons that forwarded e-mails do not possess an accuracy virtually eliminating error because their text can be manipulated. Moreover, the district judge properly instructed the jurors on the burden of proof. Robinson arranged for Neufeld to stay at Extended Stay America in Overland Park. During Robinson's penalty phase case, Nancy Robinson testified to the character of her husband as a good father, grandfather, and family man. 222401a(10)(a). She is covering the trial for Courttv.com. Any bodily injury Trouten may have sustained through consensual BDS & M sex could not, as a matter of law, support the bodily injury element of the aggravated kidnapping statute. Whether a statement properly calls for a conviction based on the evidence or, instead, improperly appeals to larger community interests is a matter of degree and dependent on the nature of the remark and the context in which it is made. Judge Anderson's curative instruction and follow-up inquiry confirmed this panel nevertheless remained impartial. During small group voir dire, the defense disclosed sensitive case-specific allegations and probed jurors for potential bias, both in general and specific to sentencing, in response to such facts. Having completed first-degree premeditated murder before the existence of capital murder, the prosecution for that prior murder should, intuitively as well as logically, be governed under the laws existing at the time such crime was committed. Is it one of greater enormity than theis it one of greater gravity than the average? In death penalty cases, prospective jurors may be excluded if their death penalty views substantially impair their ability to comply with the law. Courts have found such printouts acceptable for best evidence purposes, even where the e-mails have been forwarded. Trouten was not with Robinson at the time, and hotel employees did not see her at all on March 1. Contrary to Robinson's assertion, the prosecutor did not ask the question to implicate Nancy Robinson in any criminal activity. During voir dire of the twenty-second small group panel, prosecutor Morrison made the following comments while describing the capital sentencing scheme: The second phase is after a defendant has been convicted of capital murder. 60455 did not apply because defendant's prior acts did not constitute criminal offenses. The statute requires the applicant to provide a full and complete statement of specific allegations indicating why normal investigative procedures failed or would fail in the particular case . Blackmon, 273 F.3d at 1207. In the first phase, Judge Anderson called prospective jurors in groups of 60 to explore and rule on hardship challenges. Through this questioning, the State established that Cunningham earned $11,000 for his services. As Robinson grew older, the abuse escalated, often leaving him unconscious or bedridden, and his mother isolated him from other family members.. The brief and isolated nature of the comment also leads us to conclude that it bore little weight in the minds of jurors during their consideration of the evidence supporting the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. From a legal, factual, or logical viewpoint, one simply cannot say that those duties were fulfilled in this case. Investigators noticed one of the sets of bedding matched the pattern on the pillowcase found inside the barrel containing Lewicka's body. From these averments one can reasonably infer that resort to search warrants, like other alternative investigatory methods described in the application, would not have produced this evidence. It is unlikely this particular ruling was fresh in the prosecutor's mind during the rebuttal portion of closing argument. So that is what I hope that I would base it on, yes.. Juror 271 simply responded, I just say I can be impartial come trial time.. Since Irvin, the Supreme Court has twice considered and rejected claims that juror declarations of impartiality should be set aside. Instead, he gave effect to both of Robinson's Sixth Amendment intereststhe right to counsel of choice and the right to competent counselby accepting Thomas' entry of appearance and appointing qualified cocounsel. On September 5, 2002, defense counsel informed the district judge that DNA samples had been sent to a lab for independent testing. We also have ruled that the prosecutor made three isolated remarks that exceeded the scope of the evidence. Robinson relies on United States v. Husted, 545 F.3d 1240, 1241 (10th Cir.2008). 27 December 1943 - Robinson currently remains on death row at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in Kansas, and could become the first convict executed by lethal injection in that state. Only in rare and extreme cases will the court disregard juror declarations of impartiality in favor of a finding of actual prejudice. Notwithstanding the egregious nature of the crimes and the compelling evidence of guilt presented in this particular case, I believe it is time for this court to reexamine the constitutionality of the death penalty under 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, which prohibits the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment.. With this standard in mind, we turn to the analysis of each challenge. This element requires that the multiple killings be related to one another in some way, that they occur as a part of the same act or transaction, or in two or more acts connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560, 572, 162 P.3d 28 (2007) (quoting K.S.A. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) (claims of vagueness under Eighth Amendment assert inadequate notice failing to limit a sentencer's discretion). As a general rule, [prosecutors] should not be allowed to develop new arguments on rebuttal, but should be restricted to answering the arguments put forth by defense counsel. Hall v. United States, 540 A.2d 442, 448 (D.C.1988) (quoting Moore v. United States, 344 F.2d 558, 560 [D.C.Cir.1965] ); see Supreme Court Rule 168(a)(2) (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. Robinson's real complaint is that Judge Anderson did not assign his evidence the weight he believed it deserved. Robinson moved in limine to exclude testimony regarding the number of tools seized. As a child, he showed early signs of sociopathy: deceit, manipulation, and kleptomania. K.S.A. Remington confirmed these exhibits were true and accurate copies of the original messages she observed on her computer screen. Yep. Cunningham identified Robinson's past behavioral history in prison as the second risk assessment factor relevant to his analysis. No prejudicial error may be found under the cumulative error doctrine if the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming. At trial, Ponce examined the envelopes Trouten's family had received and said they were consistent with the ones she had mailed from Veracruz and that the writing on the return address appeared to be her own. As discussed below, this statute was later amended to specifically apply the territorial restriction to district magistrate judges only. State v. SmithParker, 301 Kan. 132, 161, 340 P.3d 485 (2014). We begin with the search warrant statutes, which predate the legislature's enactment of K.S.A. 4:12CV294FL, 2013 WL 4460265, at *5 (E.D.N.C.2013) (where plaintiff alleged private trash hauler removed trash at behest of law enforcement, complaint sufficiently alleged action under color of law sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. By: Catherine Townsend To his neighbors, John Edward Robinson was a churchgoing family man. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But when it comes to police officer versus not a police officer, VENIREPERSON 14: Without anything else to weigh. This we cannot do. As to the option of enhanced voir dire, Dillehay explained that the court could overcome juror minimization, which he described as a tendency on the part of jurors during voir dire to downplay what they learned from the media coverage and the impact it had on their prejudgment and/or impartiality, by allowing attorneys to ask prospective jurors extensive, probing voir dire questions. See United States v. Yamin, 868 F.2d 130, 134 (5th Cir.1989) (purpose is to prevent fraud). He reviews various cases and statutes in which the phrases have been used and concludes that collectively they demonstrate no one meaning can be identified. The court sentenced Robinson on January 21, 2003. It was not until Mattingly's direct examination at trial that she clarified that she had first observed Robinson cleaning unit F10 and then, at a later point in time, received the complaint from the third-party lessee. Did the trash searches violate K.S.A. 460 (2014); Marshall, 294 Kan. at 863 (comments regarding witness' honesty not improper when tied to evidence); Chanthaseng, 293 Kan. at 148 (prosecutor's statements about the witness' credibility proper where based on reasonable inferences from evidence); State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824, 83032, 257 P.3d 309 (2011) (prosecutor's statements about the victim's credibility proper where based on evidence).