Bonneville Phoenix Network
 KTAR News
 Arizona Sports
92.3 FM KTAR
Updated Oct 13, 2013 - 3:17 pm

Dead inmate subject of Arizona Supreme Court case

PHOENIX — An Arizona inmate who died in January without having his appeals
resolved is the subject of a case before the state Supreme Court.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Welty dismissed the indictment
against Richard Glassel after his death from apparent natural causes. That
decision doesn’t sit well with county prosecutors who have asked the Arizona
Supreme Court to nullify it and keep Glassel’s criminal record intact.

Glassel’s victims from a Peoria homeowners’ association meeting where he opened
fire in 2000 also are seeking to have the legal precedent that Welty used to
reach his decision abolished, the Arizona Capitol Times reported.

The high court heard arguments in the case earlier this month but hasn’t made a

Glassel was sentenced to death on two counts of first-degree murder in the
deaths of board members Duane Lynn and Esther LaPlante, and 351 years on 30
counts of attempted murder. The 75-year-old Glassel was imprisoned in Florence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a defendant’s death makes it impossible to
enforce a judgment. Justice William Holohan wrote in 1979 that the interests of
the state in protecting society have been satisfied.

Welty relied on that case to wipe clear Glassel’s conviction and sentence. The
legal doctrine, referred to as abatement, is used throughout the country
although some states have done away with, limited or modified it.

Attorney Colleen Clase of Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, who represents Lynn
and his adult children, says the doctrine is outdated and doesn’t support
victims’ rights.

Maricopa County Deputy Attorney Gerald Grant argued that the doctrine applies
only to direct appeals, not post-conviction relief proceedings that aren’t part
of the constitutionally guaranteed appeal process.

“By applying abatement to the post-conviction relief proceeding, which is
where Mr. Glassel died before any of his claims could be resolved, essentially
gives him the benefit of having earned something that he didn’t,” Grant said in
court. “It gives him the benefit of having his convictions overturned.”

Glassel had alleged that his trial attorney did not effectively raise a
guilty-except-insane defense that could have put him in a mental institution
instead of being sentenced to death.

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Brutinel asked during the arguments why it
all mattered.

“It matters for him and his family because there is a substantial stigma
associated with this conviction,” defense attorney Charles Babbitt said.


Information from: Arizona Capitol Times,


comments powered by Disqus