Opinion ID: 2264839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Selected Portions from Pages 4-94 of Transcript of Penalty Phase Proceedings February 26, 1993 Jerome O. Herlihy, J.

Text: THE COURT: Mr. Steven Shelton,.... Is it still your desire to represent yourself in the penalty phase and not have Mr. Willard be your attorney in that penalty phase? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: You hesitated slightly before answering yes.... Can you well me why? STEVEN SHELTON: Well, I did a little research on a few cases that you put in front of the Court or put out there. And it states in State versus Deere that it would be, for defense counsel to keep representing me, it would be an ethical conflict to my wishes, meaning that an attorney opposes the death penalty, and if it's imposed or since we're going through, my attorney opposes it, and if the jury comes back with the death penalty, you know, I just feel that it's unethical for him to represent me since I am facing the death penalty now. That's my opinion, and that's how I feel. [1]
THE COURT: You are not asking for the death penalty, correct? STEVEN SHELTON: No, I'm not. THE COURT: Tell me again why you think, since you are not asking for the death penalty, why you think Mr. Willard should not do anything on your behalf and should not represent you, as best you can in your own words, and take your time. STEVEN SHELTON: Right. I feel that I was convicted wrongly from the evidence that was presented against me. The evidence against me, I would like for it to be presented to the jury without any mitigating evidence in my behalf, and have them come back with the guilt  with either a verdict either death or life in prison. THE COURT: Excuse me for one moment. What you are saying is that you  are you saying that you would like to take your chances with this jury  I'll put it in other words and just let me see if I understand what your thoughts are. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. Are you saying that you would like to take your chances with this jury, first because they've already heard all the evidence as far as the guilt phase  correct? STEVEN SHELTON: True. THE COURT:  and there will be no other evidence regarding that in most respects, and you want to have them make up their minds and make their recommendations to me, and also, you want me to make up my mind based in effect on the evidence during the guilt phase of the trial? Is that correct? STEVEN SHELTON: That is correct. THE COURT: Why is it that you think that not presenting mitigating evidence will be helpful to you? STEVEN SHELTON: As I stated earlier, the day before yesterday, I don't want to drag my family through this anymore. I have talked to my family, and we have all agreed that I am a competent adult and I know what I am doing, and this is my decision. [2]
THE COURT: Do you think that your decision to ask Mr. Willard to step aside or me have him step aside and also not present any evidence  STEVEN SHELTON: Mitigating evidence? THE COURT: Mitigating evidence, evidence to help you get a life sentence. STEVEN SHELTON: Right. [3]
STEVEN SHELTON: I feel that I shouldn't bring any mitigating evidence in my behalf. That's my decision, and I'm going to stand with it. THE COURT: Other than your concern for your family, why? STEVEN SHELTON: That's just my personal decision, and that's as far as I'm going to go with that. [4]
THE COURT: [To Mr. Willard, Steven Shelton's counsel]. I understand that you feel, in light of Mr. Shelton's expressed wishes not to have you represent him and not to put anything on, you now feel an ethical obligation to go along with his wishes? MR. WILLARD: Correct, your Honor, so we're clear on that. Now, your Honor, you asked Mr. Shelton about his family and their wishes. I have spoken with his mother, two or three of his sisters, extensively, and all of them have stated to me that it tears their heart to understand what could happen to Steve and that he could get a death sentence. However, they absolutely respect his wishes, and they're in agreement with it because they have expressed to me that it is, after all, his life. [5]
I have advised them on my first meeting that it is a possibility that your Honor could order me as an officer of this Court to present mitigating evidence, and that I would therefore call them to discuss with me the things that we spoke of over many, many hours in my office about his childhood and his upbringing and the kind of things that I believe would be mitigating in his behalf. They have expressed to me the thought that they perhaps would not honor my wishes and come in voluntarily, and that if they were subpoenaed, they perhaps would disregard a subpoena because they feel that their first obligation is to Steve and to respect his wishes. [6]
Now, your Honor, one other point: .... Steve said to me at one point, my feeling is that this was such a grievous, horrible murder, that there is nothing I could put in front of this jury that would make them have enough mercy on be to give me life rather than death, and in fact, begging for mercy in front of this jury may have an adverse effect. They may feel that because, after being found guilty of this crime, if I come in here and plead for mercy, that may turn them off, and make them want to give me death. They may think less of me as a man if I plead for mercy. So as a strategic matter, there is the potential that he would be better off in getting a life sentence by saying to the jury, I have nothing to say. I will not ask  I will not put on mitigating circumstances, and I will allow you to make your decision on the evidence the State has put forward, and that because  that a jury may very well look at that and say, here is a man who has been found guilty and is not going to plead for mercy, and we respect him for that. And then they may very well find that because it  at least there's some evidence that would indicate that he was not a real principal player in this that we tried to develop, that if anything, he was present or maybe initially involved in a small amount, but not as much as the other two, that they may very well say, because of his involvement being somewhat lesser than the others, and because he didn't plead for mercy, we will respect him for that and give him a life sentence instead of the death sentence. That was the discussion that Steve and I have had. I hope I'm not saying something he doesn't want me to say because when you asked him that question, he didn't respond that way. STEVEN SHELTON: That's pretty close. [7]
STEVEN SHELTON: That was pretty close. I don't have the total recall of the exact conversation, but that's pretty close to our discussion. THE COURT: Do you want to talk to Mr. Willard any more about your current thinking to represent yourself and present no mitigating evidence whatsoever? I'll give you that opportunity, if you would like it. STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. Yes, I would. I would like to further discuss it with Mr. Willard. [8]
MR. WILLARD: [After consultation]. My client's position has changed somewhat, your Honor. He wishes first to continue to represent himself at the penalty phase hearing. Secondly, he's asked that I call and have available to him those certain witnesses that I had mentioned to him who would be available for possible testimony as to mitigation. He will decide which of those he will call, if any of them, when his turn comes, and that will be determined on what goes before him. Secondly, he asked that in my position of assisting him, that I be able to give closing argument to the jury and argue my position on  against the death penalty because he feels that I can do that better then he could. And he reserves, your Honor, most particularly and first and most importantly his right to allocution. He has indicated to me that he's prepared to take the stand and make a statement to the jury, with or without having called witnesses, and that he understands that he has a right to allocution without cross examination. THE COURT: Well, if he takes the stand, he's not speaking in allocution as such. That will be a separate matter during which he cannot talk about the events of January 11, 12, 1992. MR. WILLARD: Excuse me, your Honor. THE COURT: He can't get into  if he's speaking in allocution, he cannot discuss the events of January 11 and 12, 1992. [9]
MR. WILLARD: Your Honor, he understands that. He can't talk about any factual evidence. What he would intend to address them on is his life or his feelings about this matter, and that he believes and understands that if he does that and does not talk about any factual circumstances, that he can do that without cross examination. [10]
THE COURT: [To Steven Shelton]. All I am saying is as far as your decision to want to represent yourself and present no evidence on behalf of yourself, do you understand that is probably a not smart decision? STEVEN SHELTON: In whose point of view? That's not my point of view. THE COURT: Do you understand that I may think it's not a smart decision on your part? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Do you understand that it is always more dangerous to represent one's self? STEVEN SHELTON: I understand that. THE COURT: I am going to ask this, even though I asked you awhile ago. If I permit you to represent yourself and you choose on your own not to present any mitigating evidence, do you understand that that decision, my decision and your decision are ones that you make be stuck with on appeal, on any post-conviction remedy or at any other time? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I do. THE COURT: When I say stuck with it, you may not be able to come back  you will not be able to come back or may not be able to come back and say the Judge shouldn't have allowed me to do that. Do you understand? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: Do you understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: I understand that. My decision is based on the either life or death situation. I hold true to that. THE COURT: Do you understand that as far as presenting reasons to the jury why you should get a recommendation of a life sentence and why I should impose a life sentence, that Mr. Willard, no disrespect to you, Mr. Willard as a trained, very experienced and very competent lawyer who has had many cases in this court, would be better able to present that to the jury and to me than you would? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: And you accept that risk even though it means the death penalty? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Or the possibility of the death penalty. STEVEN SHELTON: That's correct. THE COURT: And you understand that Mr. Willard, as I was trying to say not too well a moment ago, is a lawyer and it's his job to believe in your case and to present the case as a professional, and he doesn't have  he doesn't become emotional like the person  like yourself. Do your understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I understand that. [11]
THE COURT: As a lawyer, as a professional, since he's not representing himself, but since he's here to represent you to the best extent he can, he is better able to present the evidence on your behalf or point out to the jury any weaknesses in the State's case. Do you understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. [12]
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Shelton, I am going to grant your request, not the amended one. I will allow you to represent yourself.... [13] I am fully satisfied that you understand the risks of what you are doing, that you fully understand that by representing yourself, you are not doing the best thing, rather than having your lawyer representing you, even though you may believe you may be able to get your family members to come in and say things, if you ask them, rather than Mr. Willard. STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: But that still  I understand and appreciate that you understand and appreciate that that still could hurt you in the presence of the jury, correct? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I do. THE COURT: [Y]ou will be able to freely consult with him as stand-by counsel when we resume these proceedings next week about any matter .... You are  you have an eleventh grade education, 27 years old. You are not  you have  and I don't say this disparagingly, but it's part of the decision I have to make in terms of whether your decision to do this is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. You are experienced in the criminal justice system.... And you have, after two days of further talking to your family about it and Mr. Willard, you have repeated the decision, except with the one thing about Mr. Willard being able to speak to the jury on your behalf, which I cannot allow.... As I said, however, that does not prohibit you from first consulting at any time with Mr. Willard about what you might want to do, any questions you might want to ask, or about any other matter or anything else during the course of these proceedings. Do you understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: Further, it does not prevent you in any way from speaking to the jury in allocution and to me. Do you understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: Allocution, I don't  THE COURT: Allocution is a very technical word, speaking to the jury on your own behalf. I apologize for using the word that [even] most lawyers don't know. Allocution is a very legalistic way for asking the sentencing authority, whether it's a jury or jury, to give you mercy, spare your life in this case, and sentence you to life. That's what it really means, to explain your humanity, you know. STEVEN SHELTON: I understand. THE COURT: Whether you want to  you can't argue about the facts. You can talk about yourself, your background, your upbringing, your education, your folks at home, any alcohol abuse problems, things like that. You can talk about all those things as much as you want. You just can't talk about the facts surrounding the murder. Do you understand that? STEVEN SHELTON: Yes. THE COURT: And I find that you do understand that, and that that is part of the decision that you have made, that you think that you might do that. You understand that you have a right to do that to me and to the jury. STEVEN SHELTON: Yes, I do. [14] Allocution Statement of Steven Shelton Pages 62-63 Transcript of Penalty Phase Proceedings March 3, 1993 Jerome O. Herlihy, J.
STEVEN SHELTON: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I stand before you not to plead for my life. I feel that's wrong an improper and basically disrespectful to the victim's family and to mine. The State has painted a picture, and that picture is not very pretty, pertaining to me and my co-defendants. And I would just like to present to the jury a different side or a different meaning to Steven Shelton. The State has pictured me as being a monster, as being a rapist, as being a violent individual, but as you heard from my family, that's not so. The State only presents one side of the picture. There's two sides to every story. And the State just presents the negative side. The jury has found me guilty of these allegations, and now it's the jury's turn to render a verdict. And that verdict is either life in jail or death. Again, I'm not here to plead for my life, but just ask the jury to be fair in their decisions. That's all I have to say. [15]