Judge rules Mother's opinion impermissible

[Deleted]

Court: Mother's opinion impermissible


The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal ruled late Monday that the mother of a slain 6-year-old boy cannot ask jurors to spare the life of the man who admitted molesting and strangling her son. The appeals court said "the personal belief of the victim's mother about whether the defendant should receive a life or death sentence" is impermissible victim impact testimony and is irrelevant. The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal on the same issue.
Lorilei Guillory was allowed to testify briefly Monday, however. As the final defense witness, she told jurors that Ricky Langley's present mental condition is different from when she 1st met him Feb. 7, 1992, as she searched for her missing son, Jeremy. Though she may not ever be allowed to tell jurors, Guillory read a prepared statement to reporters after court Monday in which she said putting Ricky Langley to de! ath is not the way to honor her son. "The way to honor Jeremy," she said, "is through the child protection laws passed in his honor." She was referring to sex offender registration and notification laws passed as a result of Jeremy's death. Guillory made it clear she does not want Langley to go free. "I have always wanted him to be locked up and unable to harm another child," Guillory said." I must clarify that I personally have not forgiven Ricky Langley for what he did, and he must be held accountable." Guillory said she met with District Attorney Rick Bryant last year and asked him to accept Langley's plea agreement to life in prison without parole "and put an end to this by putting Ricky in jail for the rest of his life." She said she told Bryant she doesn't need Langley put to death to heal, and that she personally opposes the death penalty for Langley "as a solution to this terrible and sad situation." "Jeremy's death devastated me and my family, and I have worked very hard to pull my life together since it happened," Guillory said.
"I resent the fact that because I do not want the death penalty in this case, and wanted the state to accept life without parole, the state has treated me as if I am the enemy and has used my disagreement with the death penalty to divide my family at a time when we need each other to heal." My son was the victim, and I'm here to honor and represent his voice since his voice was smothered and taken from him.
No one can tell another person the right way to heal, and the state cannot tell me the death penalty will heal me." During her brief stint on the witness stand Monday, Guillory told jurors, "Just as I can hear my son's death cries, I also hear Ricky Langley's cries for help and for whatever reason he has never gotten that help." She agreed with lead defense attorney Clive Stafford-Smith that Langley is sick. Under cross-examination by Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Killingsworth, Guillory could not be specific about where she had obtained her information about the defendant. She said she had spoken with him only twice, once on Feb. 7, 1992, when she was looking for her missing son and again last year when she had an extended visit with him and Stafford-Smith at the Calcasieu Correctional Center. After Guillory testified, the defense rested its case. Killingsworth and Assistant District Attorneys Sharon Darville Wilson and Wayne Frey are expected to present testimony today, May 13, to rebut the sanity issue raised by the defense. To prove Langley was insane at the time he killed the boy, defense attorneys have to prove he suffers from a mental disorder that prevented him from knowing right from wrong. Jurors heard from two defense experts Monday, a psychiatrist and a physician who specializes in maternal fetal management.Dr. Rhan Bailey, formerly of LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans but now affiliated with Baylor School of Medicine in Houston, told jurors he believes Langley suffers from a psychosis and "was not mentally able to develop an intent" when he strangled the Guillory boy. He said he believes Langley "did not know it was wrongful."
Bailey said he reached those conclusions after interviewing Langley twice in March and April of this year, speaking to some of the defendant's family members and examining volumes of records and documents, including 3 taped confessions Langley gave to police. The other expert, Dr. Robert T. Maupin, an instructor at the LSU medical school, testified about the effects drugs and X-rays can have on a developing fetus. Langley was reportedly conceived while his mother was wearing a body cast during her recovery from a serious automobile accident.
Before her pregnancy was detected she was given various medication and X-rays that Maupin said could have had adverse effects on Langley as he was developing in the womb. Stafford-Smith denied on Monday that part of his trial strategy was to call 3 black expert witnesses with ties to New Orleans to testify before a predominantly black jury selected from Orleans Parish. Defense attorneys put at issue early in the trial the racial makeup of the jury. They were successful in having 2 black women re-instated to the jury after the state asked that they be excluded.
Stafford-Smith said the experts he called, including one on Saturday and 2 on Monday, were last-minute finds after some of the experts he had previously lined up either refused to assist or were not available for the trial. None of the experts called during this trial testified during Langley's 1st trial in Baton Rouge in 1994.

Statement of Lorilei Guillory
Released in Lake Charles, Louisiana -- May 12, 2003

My name is Lorilei Guillory. I am the mother of Jeremy Guillory who was 6 years old when Ricky Langley murdered him in 1992. I do not want Ricky Langley to go free. I have always wanted him to be locked up and unable to harm another child. I must clarify that I personally have not forgiven Ricky Langley for what he did and he must be held accountable. Last year I met with the district attorney and asked him to please accept Ricky Langley’s plea agreement of life without parole; and put an end to this by putting Ricky Langley in jail for the rest of his life. I informed the district attorney that I do not need Ricky Langley put to death in order to heal and that I personally oppose the death penalty for Ricky Langley as a solution to this terrible and sad situation. Jeremy's death devastated my family and me and I have worked very hard to pull my life together since it happened. I resent the fact that because I do not want the death penalty in this case, and wanted the state to accept life without parole, the state has treated me as if I am the enemy and has used my disagreement with the death penalty to divide my family at a time when we need each other to heal. No one can tell another person the right way to heal and the state cannot tell me that the death penalty will heal me. Putting Ricky Langley to death is not the way to honor my son Jeremy. The way to honor Jeremy is through the child protection laws passed in his honor.

Thank you.

[david]

I'm uncomfortable with this. A key element of victims' rights is the ability to meaningfully participate in the trial, and this cuts against that worthy goal. Sadly, all too often when victim survivors oppose the death penalty, they are treated as the enemy by prosecutors gung ho for a conviction and death sentence.

Doc said:

Court: Mother's opinion impermissible


The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal ruled late Monday that the mother of a slain 6-year-old boy cannot ask jurors to spare the life of the man who admitted molesting and strangling her son. The appeals court said "the personal belief of the victim's mother about whether the defendant should receive a life or death sentence" is impermissible victim impact testimony and is irrelevant. The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal on the same issue.
Lorilei Guillory was allowed to testify briefly Monday, however. As the final defense witness, she told jurors that Ricky Langley's present mental condition is different from when she 1st met him Feb. 7, 1992, as she searched for her missing son, Jeremy. Though she may not ever be allowed to tell jurors, Guillory read a prepared statement to reporters after court Monday in which she said putting Ricky Langley to de! ath is not the way to honor her son. "The way to honor Jeremy," she said, "is through the child protection laws passed in his honor." She was referring to sex offender registration and notification laws passed as a result of Jeremy's death. Guillory made it clear she does not want Langley to go free. "I have always wanted him to be locked up and unable to harm another child," Guillory said." I must clarify that I personally have not forgiven Ricky Langley for what he did, and he must be held accountable." Guillory said she met with District Attorney Rick Bryant last year and asked him to accept Langley's plea agreement to life in prison without parole "and put an end to this by putting Ricky in jail for the rest of his life." She said she told Bryant she doesn't need Langley put to death to heal, and that she personally opposes the death penalty for Langley "as a solution to this terrible and sad situation." "Jeremy's death devastated me and my family, and I have worked very hard to pull my life together since it happened," Guillory said.
"I resent the fact that because I do not want the death penalty in this case, and wanted the state to accept life without parole, the state has treated me as if I am the enemy and has used my disagreement with the death penalty to divide my family at a time when we need each other to heal." My son was the victim, and I'm here to honor and represent his voice since his voice was smothered and taken from him.
No one can tell another person the right way to heal, and the state cannot tell me the death penalty will heal me." During her brief stint on the witness stand Monday, Guillory told jurors, "Just as I can hear my son's death cries, I also hear Ricky Langley's cries for help and for whatever reason he has never gotten that help." She agreed with lead defense attorney Clive Stafford-Smith that Langley is sick. Under cross-examination by Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Killingsworth, Guillory could not be specific about where she had obtained her information about the defendant. She said she had spoken with him only twice, once on Feb. 7, 1992, when she was looking for her missing son and again last year when she had an extended visit with him and Stafford-Smith at the Calcasieu Correctional Center. After Guillory testified, the defense rested its case. Killingsworth and Assistant District Attorneys Sharon Darville Wilson and Wayne Frey are expected to present testimony today, May 13, to rebut the sanity issue raised by the defense. To prove Langley was insane at the time he killed the boy, defense attorneys have to prove he suffers from a mental disorder that prevented him from knowing right from wrong. Jurors heard from two defense experts Monday, a psychiatrist and a physician who specializes in maternal fetal management.Dr. Rhan Bailey, formerly of LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans but now affiliated with Baylor School of Medicine in Houston, told jurors he believes Langley suffers from a psychosis and "was not mentally able to develop an intent" when he strangled the Guillory boy. He said he believes Langley "did not know it was wrongful."
Bailey said he reached those conclusions after interviewing Langley twice in March and April of this year, speaking to some of the defendant's family members and examining volumes of records and documents, including 3 taped confessions Langley gave to police. The other expert, Dr. Robert T. Maupin, an instructor at the LSU medical school, testified about the effects drugs and X-rays can have on a developing fetus. Langley was reportedly conceived while his mother was wearing a body cast during her recovery from a serious automobile accident.
Before her pregnancy was detected she was given various medication and X-rays that Maupin said could have had adverse effects on Langley as he was developing in the womb. Stafford-Smith denied on Monday that part of his trial strategy was to call 3 black expert witnesses with ties to New Orleans to testify before a predominantly black jury selected from Orleans Parish. Defense attorneys put at issue early in the trial the racial makeup of the jury. They were successful in having 2 black women re-instated to the jury after the state asked that they be excluded.
Stafford-Smith said the experts he called, including one on Saturday and 2 on Monday, were last-minute finds after some of the experts he had previously lined up either refused to assist or were not available for the trial. None of the experts called during this trial testified during Langley's 1st trial in Baton Rouge in 1994.

Statement of Lorilei Guillory
Released in Lake Charles, Louisiana -- May 12, 2003

My name is Lorilei Guillory. I am the mother of Jeremy Guillory who was 6 years old when Ricky Langley murdered him in 1992. I do not want Ricky Langley to go free. I have always wanted him to be locked up and unable to harm another child. I must clarify that I personally have not forgiven Ricky Langley for what he did and he must be held accountable. Last year I met with the district attorney and asked him to please accept Ricky Langley’s plea agreement of life without parole; and put an end to this by putting Ricky Langley in jail for the rest of his life. I informed the district attorney that I do not need Ricky Langley put to death in order to heal and that I personally oppose the death penalty for Ricky Langley as a solution to this terrible and sad situation. Jeremy's death devastated my family and me and I have worked very hard to pull my life together since it happened. I resent the fact that because I do not want the death penalty in this case, and wanted the state to accept life without parole, the state has treated me as if I am the enemy and has used my disagreement with the death penalty to divide my family at a time when we need each other to heal. No one can tell another person the right way to heal and the state cannot tell me that the death penalty will heal me. Putting Ricky Langley to death is not the way to honor my son Jeremy. The way to honor Jeremy is through the child protection laws passed in his honor.

Thank you.

[Deleted]

I was just posting an article, however I will give my 2 cents worth, which in the long run doesn't matter as I am not a judge. If the Family members are allowed to speak at the sentencing of a convicted criminal in asking for the death penalty, they should also be able to speak up against it. Personally I am opposed to the idea altogether as it may cloud the judgement of the jurors, and it is their job to give out the sentence based upon facts.

David said:

I'm uncomfortable with this. A key element of victims' rights is the ability to meaningfully participate in the trial, and this cuts against that worthy goal. Sadly, all too often when victim survivors oppose the death penalty, they are treated as the enemy by prosecutors gung ho for a conviction and death sentence.

[D.E.E.]

Doc said:

I was just posting an article, however I will give my 2 cents worth, which in the long run doesn't matter as I am not a judge. If the Family members are allowed to speak at the sentencing of a convicted criminal in asking for the death penalty, they should also be able to speak up against it. Personally I am opposed to the idea altogether as it may cloud the judgement of the jurors, and it is their job to give out the sentence based upon facts.

I have to agree if one can make a statement asking for the DP then another should be able to make a statement asking that the DP not be applied.

I do not believe that either statement should be made. I do believe a victim impact statement could be made without stating either view and should be heard.

[Deleted]

I am also uncomfortable with this. We should all be able to participate in the trial process regardless of how we feel on the DP. If the court is to deal in facts, well then it should have all the facts. The truth should not be considered inflamatory to the jury no matter what it is. If it is a fact than it should be heard, especially from the MVS.

David said:

I'm uncomfortable with this. A key element of victims' rights is the ability to meaningfully participate in the trial, and this cuts against that worthy goal. Sadly, all too often when victim survivors oppose the death penalty, they are treated as the enemy by prosecutors gung ho for a conviction and death sentence.

[Anony+]

Actually, victim's families are not allowed to specifically ask "for" the death penalty. Victim impact statements are permitted on VERY limited topics, usually relating to the victim's life and the impact of the victim's death upon their family or community. So, since they're not allowed to ask "for" the DP, I have no problem w/the judge's opinion that prhibits victim's families to ask to spare the killer's life.

Anony+

[Deleted]

Anony+ said:

Actually, victim's families are not allowed to specifically ask "for" the death penalty. Victim impact statements are permitted on VERY limited topics, usually relating to the victim's life and the impact of the victim's death upon their family or community. So, since they're not allowed to ask "for" the DP, I have no problem w/the judge's opinion that prhibits victim's families to ask to spare the killer's life.

Anony+

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Then I will have to agree with you on this point.

[Macklin]

None of the families either for or againest the DP should be able to say where they want the murderer put to death or have the murdrer recieve LWOP. For these are just opinions, which have no legal basis.....

Therefore it makes what they want irrevelant to sentenceing and punishments....which are laws and is what the jury has to go by in deciding the sentences and punishments for the murder.

[Shaka]

I think families should be able to call for the death penalty or for lenience. However the court ultimately and uphold the law ( but not deaf to public opinion ), whether its for or against DP.

[Donnie]

The murderer has already made certain of that.

David said:

A key element of victims' rights is the ability to meaningfully participate in the trial

The ability of a murder victim to meaningfully participate in the trial never exists. They can't participate at all in anything anymore. Is that fair? Is that just?

[Donnie]

TEXT

Linda said:

If the court is to deal in facts, well then it should have all the facts. TEXT

The court never has all the facts. For example the degree of suffering that the little boy experienced is a fact, but we can never know that.

[D.E.E.]

Donnie said:

TEXT

The court never has all the facts. For example the degree of suffering that the little boy experienced is a fact, but we can never know that.

:(Well no the court can not know the degree of suffering that the child went through, but the amount of suffering should not in and of itself have any affect on the outcome of the trial. The trial has to deal with facts of guilt and innocence not degree of suffering. After the trial the victim impact statement should be heard but again it should have no impact on the decission for the DP or not. Therefore the victims loved ones should not be able to call for the DP or for Life, it should be left up to the jury or judge as the case may be.

[Deleted]

MVS's who are antis should be able to say that they are anti DP.

[Donnie]

The decision was right. She can use her victim impact statement to provide an explanation of how the murder of her son made her life better. That can't help but impress the jury and it would be within the rules.

David said:

I'm uncomfortable with this. A key element of victims' rights is the ability to meaningfully participate in the trial, and this cuts against that worthy goal. Sadly, all too often when victim survivors oppose the death penalty, they are treated as the enemy by prosecutors gung ho for a conviction and death sentence.

[Deleted]

The reason that courts have not been inclined to allow victim impact statement is because they do carry a lot of weight to jurors and can prejudice them. Usually it is the defense that doesn't want them used, but once in awhile it works the other way. In Furman The Court set out a rule that said that there must be specific aggrivating/mitigating factors and allowing the emotional pleas for or against that penalty could override that safeguard. During trial the jury does have to see and hear many details about suffering and horrible nature of the crime, but it is not as emotionally charged.