Phoenix, Arizona - A. The Shooting Incident
On January 10, 2003 Susan Glassel attended the sentencing session of her husband's murder trial. Richard Glassel, 64, received the death penalty by 12 average Arizona residents. He had killed two Ventana Lakes board members on April 19, 2000 during a board meeting. He was a former homeowner who was sued by the board over the right to trim shrubbery, and lost his home.
Two years after this tragic event, and 7 months before the trial, the April 19, 2002 ABC 20/20 program on homeowner association abuse contained a statement by a spokesperson from Ventana Lakes. He said, "He [Glassel] wanted to prune HIS shrubs to HIS liking".
This was the only time Mrs. Glassel attended the trial. It was the only time Richard Glassel, in a wheel chair due to a long term medical problem, attended his murder trial. The prosecutor had only showed a mug shot to the jury.
The trial actually took some 5 weeks with 3 weeks off during the holidays.
The homeowner association (POA) was created in 1986 and has over 3,000 members.
B. The Murder Trial
1. The Beginning
Although the actual trial began on November 18, 2002, there was 2 ½ years of activity involving the judge, Peter C. Reinstein, the prosecutor, Catherine Hughes, and the public defender's office. The third and last public defender, Dennis Jones, told the judge just a week earlier that he was not ready and did not intend to call any witnesses. He was assigned the case some 8 months earlier. The trial was ordered to begin by Judge Reinstein of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
In August 2001, the judge ruled that the defendant could stand trial after hearing medical reports on his mental capacity. When one of the three doctors changed his mind, the judge disregarded the change of opinion as "somewhat hastily contrived".
Eleven days before the trial began, Duane Lynn, husband of slain Nyla Lynn and retired Department of Public Safety officer, asked the judge not to consider the death penalty, to which the judge said he had no say in the sentencing. A week after my distribution of this statement to my email network and to the media, in regard to certain statements made in the press, a reporter emailed me that she was told that Mr. Lynn was in favor of capital punishment, and so was his family.
Concern for an unbiased jury resulted in a jury pool of 100 potential jurors assigned to this trial, from which the 12 jurors and 4 alternates were selected. A questionnaire was given and voir dire was conducted based on the response. The questionnaires were sealed after jury selection.
This was the first death penalty trial based on the new death penalty law, because the U.S. Supreme Court declared Arizona's old law unconstitutional. The new law required that the jury alone decide the guilt and the sentence of the defendant. Its decision is not a recommendation, but is final.
It was interesting to note the extent to which the court went to obtain jurors who would be unbiased. Several potential jurors were questioned on the basis of having prior knowledge of the shooting event from media stories of two years earlier. The judge repeatedly asked, cajoled in my opinion, these persons to say that they could put aside their views of the defendant's guilt and base their decision just on the facts presented. After a while, most said "yes". One frank response was, "If you can tell me that someone else pulled the trigger, then I will change my opinion." Others insisted on knowing the "why" of the act before they could decide.
The judge would tell the jurors during the initial sessions that the defendant was absent due to medical reasons and of his choice. The defense counsel asked that the judge only inform the jurors that the defendant choose not to attend the trial, making no reference to any medical problem. Under the new law, mitigating circumstances would be considered as the last phase and, if the jury found any, the defendant would get a life sentence.
2. The actual trial
The actual trial began on Dec 4th with opening statements following the jury instructions. The jury was instructed not to do research on the internet. No cross examination nor witnesses were called by the defense counsel, as anticipated. The public defender does not relate problems with HOA, as mentioned by the prosecutor, to issues of HOA abuses.
On Dec 10th, Glassel was found guilty, which was no surprise to anyone. What was surprising was the lack of any defense or effort to bring up HOA problems, which the judge allowed to be introduced into trial by the prosecutor over defense's objections. What was the public defender thinking?
3. The public attendees
There were some 20 - 30 attendees from Ventana Lakes, including the widower and his 2 daughters, the 7 times that I had attended the trial. There were a few reporters and court lookers-on, and myself sitting alone and off to the side. It appeared that these attendees contained a large group of "regulars". Ventana Lakes is a retirement community.
No other homeowner rights advocates attended.
In general, they were reserved and polite, with all three of the Lynns asking who I was and what was my interest in the trial. A few others asked me the same questions. However, on two occasions that I attended after the guilty verdict was given on Dec 10th, the group comported themselves, when waiting for the trial to resume, in a festive, boisterous and partying manner that resulted in being reminded where they were and to quiet down by the court clerks.
Several of the media reporters were part of these festive activities. So were the Lynns. Some reporters and members of the Ventana Lakes group did not participate.
After the death penalty decision was made, Cathy Morgan, Duane and Nyla Lynn's daughter, made the following statement to the press, "There's really no victory either way. Justice doesn't really heal; grace does". Mr. Lynn was heard to tell a friend, "We finally did it".
4. The Mitigation Phase
The last phase of the trial is a "mini-trial" that places a burden on the defense to produce mitigating circumstances, if the jury had found aggravating circumstances that permitted the death penalty. The jury found that since 2 people died, aggravating circumstances were proven. Its decision is final.
The procedure is similar to a standard trial: opening statements, presentation of evidence and closing statements. Only opening and closing statements took place by both parties.
Questions of Law --
The defense objected several times during the prosecutor's closing statement, citing a misstatement of law. The judge told the jury that these arguments were not evidence and are argumentative. They had their instructions and they were to disregard anything said to the contrary.
When the prosecutor objected to statements by the defense, the judge simply said, "Sustained", not giving any statements to the jury.
Emotional appeal --
It seems that these opening/closing statements were not to be emotional appeals. Yet, the prosecutor related this incident to the Columbine and Oklahoma City tragedies. The defense objected, but was overruled.
The defense, in rebuttal, brought up the Buddhist slayings here in the Valley, as a comparison, and the prosecutor objected. She was sustained. The defense attempted to tell the judge that the prosecutor was allowed to make this type of statement ("opened the door argument" and the other side had the right to respond), but he was told to move on.
Other statements included the defense asking for a mistrial 5 times, but were promptly denied every time. He invoked the 8th and 14th amendments. We know the 14th, but I presume he referred to the "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" clause of the 8th Amendment.
Also, the defense brought up only "age" and "no prior history" of violent crimes as mitigating factors. "History" is one other category that is permitted to be used as a mitigating factor. However, nothing was said about problems with the Ventana Lakes HOA by the public defender. The prosecutor had made references to a few other problems with the HOA as an indication that Glassel was a troublemaker.
The defense counsel had been given a copy of Villa Appalling! (October 2002) by its co-author, Donie Vanitzian, at the start of the trial. It contains several pages on Richard Glassel in relation to understanding his behavior as the result of post traumatic stress disorder. Other parts of the book deal with the Prisoner's Dilemma which describes the "follow the rules or else" alternatives that prisoners, and homeowners living in HOAs, face.
A week before the final phase began on January 8th, the public defender was emailed a copy of my research on the harassment suit against Richard Glassel by Ventana Lakes that began in 1998. It caused the loss of his home in November 1999, 5 months before the tragic murders occurred.
5. The last day
The jury returned after some 12 hours and decided on the death penalty.
I overheard the prosecutor tell some Ventana Lakes people that a juror wrote the judge saying that other jurors were "picking" on him, saying that he wasn't deliberating. He wanted to be removed.
In Arizona, the jury decision is final -- not a recommendation -- and must be unanimous. For those who served on juries, you know what goes on. The prosecutor said she didn't know if he was allowed to leave or whether he said the hell with it and went along. This is the first test of the new law, entrusting 12 average, neutral people to decide the death penalty.
After the verdict was read, defense counsel moved to talk to the jury before being discharged, but was emphatically denied. Presumably about the problem that this juror wrote the judge about.
I showed Villa Appalling! to one reporter while waiting, asking her to read the section on Glassel. She read it; her faced showed complete shock and handed it back to me saying, "This doesn't defend him, he's a killer." I asked if she thought this might be extenuating circumstances, she said "Yes," but that her bosses would not be interested.
C. The cultural bias of the jury
The Arizona media has not presented or covered any of the strong materials portraying the private government aspect of HOAs by established political scientists and researchers. These materials give a picture of homeowners associations that contrasts sharply with the happy, carefree living promoted by the real estate special interests, supported by a lack of action by the Arizona legislature and real estate department.
Generally the media only covered isolated problems with HOAs, but never finding fault with the HOA board or its procedures. This leads to the mistaken impression by readers/viewers that indeed HOA problems are isolated and there are no fundamental issues with the HOA model. Therefore, yes, these homeowners must be disgruntled, trouble makers as said in the media.
Under the new law, the jury must make the determination of mitigating circumstances. With the biased and non-coverage of homeowner rights issues by the media, the jury could not be expected to make a fair and impartial decision. This, coupled with no attempt by the public defender to present the events leading to the shooting, as contained from the public records and given in the news release posted on AHRC, only solidified the bias of the jury toward the death penalty. |
|
