High Court Upholds Death Sentence, Despite Disparaging Defense
The U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a death sentence for Frank Spisak, an Ohio neo-Nazi convicted of three murders after an unusual defense by his lawyer.
Even if the lawyer’s conduct during closing arguments was deficient, a better closing would not have made a difference, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a unanimous decision (PDF). Lawyers for Spisak had argued that the lawyer’s closing arguments in the death penalty phase of the trial were constitutionally defective.
The defense lawyer had called Spisak “sick,” “twisted” and “demented” and said he would never be any different, Breyer wrote. He described the killings in detail and acknowledged Spisak was inspired by Hitler.
But the lawyer pointed out that the experts had testified Spisak suffered from some degree of mental illness. He also urged jurors to be fair and take pride in living in a humane society, using the words “humane people” and “humane society” 10 different times.
The lawyer had put his client on the stand during the guilt phase of the trial in an effort to show his mental illness. Spisak admitted to the crimes and said Hitler was his spiritual leader.
At the sentencing phase of the trial, “the jurors had fresh in their minds the government’s evidence regarding the killings—which included photographs of the dead bodies, images that formed the basis of defense counsel’s vivid descriptions of the crimes—as well as Spisak’s boastful and unrepentant confessions and his threats to commit further acts of violence,” Breyer wrote. “We therefore do not see how a less descriptive closing argument with fewer disparaging comments about Spisak could have made a significant difference.”
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the judgment, but wrote separately to say the trial court had committed errors.
Additional coverage:
Associated Press: “Court Reinstates Death Sentence for Ohio Neo-Nazi”
