Posted on 03/07/2006 8:05:38 AM PST by Sopater
A convicted killer who has been on Washington state's death row since 1991 is asking a Seattle federal court to overturn his conviction — or at least his death sentence — based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct.
Jonathan Lee Gentry, 48, who has been on death row longer than any inmate now in the state's prison system, was convicted of the June 13, 1988, slaying of 12-year-old Cassie Holden of Pocatello, Idaho, while she was visiting her mother in Bremerton.
Since he was sentenced to death in 1991, Gentry's case has been before the state Supreme Court twice and the U.S. Supreme Court once. Gentry is now appealing his case in U.S. District Court in Seattle, claiming his rights were violated during his prosecution in Kitsap County Superior Court. In a weeklong evidentiary hearing that got under way Monday, Gentry's lawyers introduced evidence they contend undermines the legitimacy of his conviction and the death sentence.
The state counters that even if those issues have merit, they are insufficient to overturn the conviction and punishment given all the evidence against Gentry.
"The fact is the guy is guilty," Frank Holden said. "For us the only two things they should be discussing is one, set the [execution] date, and two, what kind of execution he's going to take [lethal injection or hanging]?"
In opening statements, Scott Engelhard, one of Gentry's lawyers, identified a series of issues he contended denied his client a fair trial. Among them: alleged undisclosed payments to jailhouse informants who testified against Gentry; unexplored questions of whether the crime was premeditated; and the state's "emotionally explosive" racial references to jurors.
Engelhard noted that the victim was white, as were all the jurors, and Gentry is black. During the trial's closing arguments, a Kitsap County deputy prosecutor repeatedly told jurors that Gentry referred to the victim as a "bitch," Engelhard told U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik. "There is no bigger word in this case," Engelhard asserted.
Engelhard also alleged that detectives "fed the hunger" of informants eager to make a deal by giving them money and other favors, including reduced jail time, in exchange for their damaging testimony against Gentry.
Assistant State Attorney General Greg Rosen dismissed Engelhard's allegations as "baseless." Gentry's lawyers, Rosen asserted, were trying to spin pieces of information in the "most sinister" manner possible to make it look as if prosecutors and police conspired to secure his conviction.
He also urged the court to take into account all of the evidence in the case — not just on the issues Gentry's lawyers have raised. Rosen said there was an abundance of physical evidence, which included DNA and blood evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony that implicated Gentry.
Though Gentry has been on death row longer than anyone at the state penitentiary in Walla Walla, others have awaited execution longer.
Mitchell Rupe spent 18 years on death row before his aggravated-murder conviction was finally overturned because a federal court judge decided that hanging a person of his weight would result in cruel and unusual punishment. Rupe died in prison Feb. 7 following a lengthy battle with liver disease.
Assistant Attorney General John Samson said that regardless of how Lasnik rules, it's likely Gentry's case will be on appeal for at least another two years or so.
"It's just bizarre to us that this ... is allowed to go on," Diane Holden said. "The other thing that is baffling to us is why he's such a coward. I mean he did it, he needs to own up to it, accept his impending death, perhaps ask forgiveness. ... He's committed a crime, and he's due to die for it."
Gentry death-penalty case
June 13, 1988: Just two days after arriving in Bremerton to spend the summer with her mother, 12-year-old Cassie Holden of Pocatello, Idaho, is slain near Rolling Hills Golf Course. Her body is found two days later. Aug. 16, 1988: Kitsap County Sheriff's Office says a man being held in jail for rape matches the description of the person detectives are seeking in the slaying of Holden.
Feb. 26, 1990: Jonathan Lee Gentry, 32, is charged with Holden's slaying. At the time, Gentry is serving a 20-year prison sentence for the knifepoint rape of another girl.
June 26, 1991: Gentry is convicted of aggravated first-degree murder and is later sentenced to death.
Jan. 6, 1995: Gentry's death sentence is upheld by the state Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision.
Oct. 2, 1995: The U.S. Supreme Court denies a request by Gentry for a hearing on his appeal to overturn his conviction.
Feb. 17, 1999: The state Supreme Court again upholds Gentry's death sentence. In a 7-2 decision, the court said, "Gentry has not provided us any reasons to re-examine issues we previously resolved in direct review. Moreover, he has not demonstrated the existence of new issues" to examine.
March 6, 2006: A weeklong evidentiary hearing into Gentry's claims that his rights were violated during his prosecution opens in U.S. District Court in Seattle. Among those present Monday were Cassie's father and stepmother, Frank and Diane Holden of Pocatello, Idaho. The Holdens say they believe Gentry is "nitpicking" and searching for "technicalities" to avoid his punishment, and besmirching the integrity of the prosecutors and police officers who brought him to justice.
Peter Lewis: 206-464-2217 or plewis@seattletimes.com
No. Criminals do not give up their rights. In effect, you're saying that when someone is "accused" of a crime, then they lose their rights. They can be beat up. Witnesses can be paid and bribed, etc.
The Constitution has worked for as long as it has because there are some out there who actually follow it. Don't let your justice zeal get the best of you.
parsy, the smart.
I don't know the case, and the burden of proof needed to convict in a American court but if this true, why did they need to make back door deals with informers on the inside.
Yes, criminals do give up their rights. I didn't say that "accused" criminals don't have rights prior to conviction that must be observed, but when a guy does something like rape and kill a little girl, where does he get the nerve to come back later, after his conviction, and say "They said mean things about me and made everyone hate me". Please...
Hang the dude, and prosecute all involved in the irregularites that occured during the trial. This includes the DA, police, jail staff, and the prisoners who gave untrue testimony. The guy is guilty, and those involved in the prosocutorial misconduct could have allowed him to go free.
He went through due-process, which means he has lost many of his rights.
This is just another delay tactic.
It took him (his lawyers) 15 years to come up with this excuse.
Girl would say rights violated during murder.
Why should we bend over backwards for these guys who rape and murder?
Reminds me of all the liberals complaining about Gitmo. Why should we serve gormet meals and provide full trials to terrorists when all it is doing is giving them a chance to weasel out of it?
Attorneys contracted to do defense work are way underpaid. The quality is horrible.
You think the prosecutor is going to tell the defense that they were paying some of the inmate witnesses or giving them other favors, even if they are required to do so?
Here's a crime and punishment ping for you.
Let me see if I have this right. You believe that people were bribed to testify against guy, a man convicted of the murder of a 12 year old, because he says it happened. His lawyer, who's job it is to muddy the waters to avoid execution for his client say so?
Forget the fact that the prosecutors office, police who were involved, prison officials etc ALL say it never happened?
Yep, that is a world I want to live in where the word of a child murderer is more accepted than the word of everyone in the justice system.
Where do you see this in the article?
The prosecutor said it was baseless, but was he referring to payments to inmates for testimony, or the overall defense argument?
The only way the defense would bring up the payment to prisoner witnesses is if they were later deposed by the defense.
There is nothing in the article that denies those payments or favors. You think a prosecutor wouldn't lie about this? If so, are you ever naive.
Have you not been reading about all the cases where DNA evidence has exonerated a number of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit?
I didn't say I accepted the word of the alleged criminal. I simply take the position that there is evidence that the prosecutor denied the constitutional rights of the accused. Nothing more; nothing less.
In the state of Washington, there is no evidence that should lead a citizen to believe a large number of people in the judicial system wouldn't lie.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
They said mean things about me. . .
If what the prosecutor says unnecessarily prejudices the jury, then rights have been violated.
Suppose that you have been caught selling whiskey on Sunday. A prosecutor has the right to tell the jury what you did. A prosecutor doesn't have the right to make the following speech:
And this Defendant. This miserable peice of humanity who violates the very laws of man and god. Think of Jesus who hung there bleeding and dying on that cross with these huge railroad spikes thru his hands and feet. This innocent man who died for us, this Defendant profanes his very death by selling cheap, rotgut liquor on Sunday. A day when families should be together in church and gathering around the table to eat fried chicken. Ladies and genetlemen of the jury, give this miserable piece of crap what he deserves.
The same thing is true for focusing on things like "bitch". Too much of this and you make a lynch mob, not a jury.
parsy, who understands the law.
Cops are some of the worst liars that there are. Too often, they think it is their job to put someone away, not tell the truth. Do a search on "testilying" and see what you come up with.
parsy, who knows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.