Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 501.0

529US2

Unit: $U47

[10-04-01 09:34:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

426

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

maining property and the .357 revolver into the Rappahan-
nock River and set ﬁre to the jeep.

Pursuing a lead from Verena James, the police interviewed
Cruse about the ﬁre at the Kellers’ home. Petitioner had
ﬂed to Florida. Cruse provided no useful information until
the police discovered the bodies of the victims, at which point
Cruse consulted counsel.
In a plea bargain Cruse agreed to
disclose the details of the crimes in exchange for the Com-
monwealth’s promise not to seek the death penalty against
him. Cruse described the murders but made no mention of
his own act of rape. When the Commonwealth discovered
the omission, it revoked the plea agreement and charged
Cruse with capital murder.

Petitioner was arrested and charged with robbery, abduc-
tion, rape, and the capital murders of the Kellers. At trial
in January 1994, Cruse was the Commonwealth’s main wit-
ness. He recounted the murders as we have just described.
Cruse testiﬁed petitioner raped Mrs. Keller, shot Mr. Keller
at least twice, and shot Mrs. Keller several times after she
had been felled by Cruse’s bullet. He also described peti-
tioner as the mastermind of the murders. The circum-
stances of the ﬁrst plea agreement between the Common-
wealth and Cruse and its revocation were disclosed to the
jury.
Id., at 158–159. Testifying on his own behalf, peti-
tioner admitted he was the ﬁrst to shoot Mr. Keller and it
was his idea to rob the store and set ﬁre to the house. He
denied, however, raping or shooting Mrs. Keller, and claimed
to have shot Mr. Keller only once. Petitioner blamed Cruse
for the remaining shots and disputed some other parts of
Cruse’s testimony.

The jury convicted petitioner on all counts. After consid-
ering the aggravating and mitigating evidence presented
during the sentencing phase, the jury found the aggravating
circumstances of future dangerousness and vileness of the
crimes and recommended a death sentence. The trial court
imposed the recommended sentence. The Supreme Court