Just a few hours before he was scheduled to be put to death, inmate Richard Eugene Glossip received an emergency stay of execution from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Glossip is the first Oklahoma death row inmate scheduled for execution since the United States Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol as constitutional in a case that could have dramatically shaped the future of the death penalty in America.
However, his case drew public attention after celebrities including Susan Sarandon and Sister Helen Prejean, whom Sarandon portrayed in the film Dead Man Walking, took up his cause. Many people argued that, despite a history of denied appeals and affirmed conviction, Glossip is innocent of the murder for which he was sentenced.
Glossip was convicted of first degree murder in the 1997 death of his boss, hotel owner Barry Alan Van Treese. The man who actually committed the murder, Justin Sneed, is sentenced to life in prison without parole, while Glossip is sentenced to death. Sneed testified that he did, in fact, bludgeon Van Treese, but that he did so at the behest of Glossip.
Glossip and his attorneys maintain that he is innocent. They have long argued that Sneed's testimony is unreliable, and that he accused Glossip in order to escape the death penalty himself.
Although several concerned citizens petitioned Governor Mary Fallin to intervene and issue a stay of execution, she has repeatedly declined to do so, saying that Glossip has had his day in court, and it is up to the courts--not her--to determine whether or not Glossip is executed for the crime.
Now, at the eleventh hour, Glossip has received a short reprieve. In reviewing evidence presented by Glossip's defense, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has granted a two-week emergency stay. Among the evidence defense attorneys plan to present in arguing for a new trial or a vacated death sentence is witness testimony that challenges Sneed's credibility.
According to Glossip's defense, an inmate housed close to Sneed at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Lexington reported that he overheard Sneed bragging that he had framed Glossip for the Van Treese murder. Another witness stated that he knew both Sneed and Glossip. He called Sneed a "thief and a methamphetamine addict" and said that Sneed was in no way under Glossip's control.
If Glossip's defense is not successful in obtaining a new trial or a lesser sentence, the man will be executed on September 30.
On Thursday, paramedics were called to an Oklahoma City home in response to a 2-year-old girl who was not breathing. First responders treated the toddler at the scene and transported her to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
While the death of any child is terrible, what the medical examiner found when examining the child's body was truly horrific. The toddler's death was the result of massive internal bleeding and trauma, her injuries consistent with sexual assault. In other words, the little girl had been raped to death.
After being informed of the nature of the toddler's fatal injuries, police learned that a man had been alone with the child shortly before her death, and that he left the residence after the family called 9-1-1, but before emergency workers could arrive.
The day after the 2-year-old's death, police arrested Justin Williams Lawson, 22. He is currently held in the Oklahoma County Jail on complaints of first degree rape and first degree murder.
If ultimately charged and convicted, the prospects for the suspect in this case are not good.
In general, both first degree rape and first degree murder are punishable by life in prison. However, under the circumstances--a death that occurred as the result of sexual assault--the defendant could face the death penalty.
In fact, Oklahoma law states that first degree rape is punishable by death; however, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a person cannot be executed for the rape of a child in which the victim did not die. Capital punishment, the court ruled, is only permissible for aggravated murder.
Oklahoma's aggravating factors that allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty against a murder defendant include the following:
Most people would likely agree that raping a toddler, resulting in fatal injuries, is "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." In fact, Oklahoma recently executed an inmate who had been convicted of fatally raping an 11-month-old girl. Charles Warner, one of the inmates who filed a lethal injection lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, was executed in January, becoming the first Oklahoma inmate to be put to death since the "botched" execution of his fellow plaintiff, Clayton Lockett, in April 2014.
Warner was twice convicted of the baby's rape and murder. The first time, he was sentenced to death for the girl's murder and given 999 years in prison for her rape. He won an appeal, and was subsequently convicted again. The jury still recommended death as punishment for the baby's murder, but only 75 years for rape.
In the days leading up to his death, 18-year-old Conrad Roy and his girlfriend, 17-year-old Michelle Carter, exchanged more than 1,000 text messages. Among those messages were texts Carter sent to Roy, encouraging him to kill himself. After Roy committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning, police discovered his cell phone and the messages his girlfriend sent him.
In those messages, Carter seemed to taunt Roy when he had second thoughts about suicide. She told him, "You said you were gonna do it. I don't get like why you aren't."
After police found the text messages, they arrested Carter on a complaint of involuntary manslaughter. Now 18, she is charged as a youthful offender and faces up to 20 years in prison.
Her attorney, however, argues that her conversations with her suicidal boyfriend are protected speech and is asking that the case against her be dropped. Carter's family says that the young woman actually tried to save her boyfriend and prevent him from killing himself; however, his persistent talk of suicide "brainwashed" the girl into supporting him.
Prosecutors paint a much different story. Assistant District Attorney Katie Rayburn disputed the defense lawyer's claim, telling the judge, "Her words are not protected, your honor. Her words are harmful, offensive and likely to cause an immediate, violent act."
The prosecution says that Carter urged her boyfriend's suicide as a way to gain sympathy for herself, saying she even texted a friend the day before Roy's suicide saying, "I'm thankful that our last words were, 'I love you.'" Upon his death, she immediately took to posting images of Roy on social media, talking about how much she missed him and loved him. She even organized a suicide prevention fundraiser in his name.
But rather than being the broken-hearted girlfriend, say prosecutors, Carter goaded the teen into killing himself so that she could reap attention. Even when the conversation was turned to other topics, text messages indicate the girl tried to steer Roy back to the topic of suicide, repeatedly asking, "When are you going to do it?"
Perhaps most damning are messages Carter sent to her friends. She allegedly asked Roy to delete her texts prior to killing himself, and texted another friend saying, "[If the police] read my messages with him I’m done. His family will hate me and I can go to jail.” Prosecuting attorneys say this indicates an awareness that her actions were wrong and a desire to protect herself from prosecution. But even worse is a message she allegedly sent a friend acknowledging that she could have prevented the suicide but instead manipulated Roy into completing the act: "His death is my fault. Like honestly, I could have stopped it. I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and he got scared and I told him to get back in."
This text stands in stark contrast to one Carter sent Roy's grieving mother in the days after his death: "There was nothing anyone could do to save him no matter how hard they tried. I never tried harder at something in my life."
Reports say the judge in the case has taken the motion to dismiss charges under advisement. Carter's next court date in the manslaughter case is scheduled for October 2.
A man borrowing his 11-year-old niece's phone was surprised when the girl received a Facebook message from a grown man. The uncle's actions following the receipt of the message led to the arrest of a 30-year-old man who allegedly tried to meet the girl for sex.
The girl's uncle told police that when his niece's phone received the message, he responded, purporting to be the girl. His intent in responding, he told police, was "to get him caught." According to the uncle, Justin De Tar arranged a meeting with him, believing that he was in fact the young girl, saying he would pick her up at a Sapulpa McDonald's. The uncle then notified police about the incident and told them of the meeting arrangements.
When police arrived at the restaurant, they found De Tar in his car waiting for the girl to arrive. De Tar allegedly admitted to police that he was waiting to meet a the girl for sex, but that he believed she was 16 years old. As you may know, the age of legal consent in Oklahoma is 16; however, statutory rape is a per se offense, meaning that a person who has sex with a minor is still guilty of second degree rape, even if he or she believed the minor to be of age to provide legal consent.
In this case, however, police allegedly discovered Facebook messages from May which indicated he knew she was a minor. Reports say De Tar asked the girl how old she was, and she replied that she was 10 years old.
As police searched the suspect's phone, they also allegedly discovered multiple images of child pornography and "dozens of internet searches for dad, mom, and daughter sex."
Police say upon interviewing the man, he admitted to intending to meet the girl for sex despite knowing she was a minor and knowingly possessing child pornography.
Sapulpa police arrested De Tar on complaints of lewd proposals to a child under 16 and possession of child pornography. He is held in the Tulsa County Jail on $35,000 bond.
The suspect's criminal record includes marijuana possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, and multiple counts of burglary of an automobile. He was also named in a protective order filed in May in Rogers County, which accuses him of harassing and threatening a woman who used to live with him. From December 2008 until March 2013, he was in prison for larceny of an automobile, and in October 2014, he completed a 7-year suspended sentence for conviction of being an accessory to first degree murder.
His criminal record available through an online court records search does not indicate any crimes related to child pornography or sex offenses against minors.
If convicted of lewd proposals to a child under 12, the defendant faces 25 years to life in prison.
We all know that, in the United States, a person is supposed to be considered innocent unless he or she is proven guilty of a crime. We also know that, while a person is supposed to be considered innocent, in many cases, a person accused of a crime will be treated if he or she is guilty, regardless of whether or not the allegations are true. This is particularly true in cases involving allegations of child abuse or sexual assault. A recent case out of Kentucky proves the point.
A young couple, engaged to be married and the parents of an infant daughter, we shocked one night after police showed up at their home to investigate a call reporting suspected child abuse. In that incident, an anonymous caller reported that the couple was engaged in a drunken altercation outside their apartment while one of them was holding the baby. When police arrived, they found that the child was asleep in her crib, the parents were not intoxicated, and they had spent the evening with friends--not having a drunken fight. The couple was confused about the origins of the complaint, and thought that since the call was made on April Fools' Day, it was some kind of terrible joke.
However, the complaints continued, and each time, the parents were accused of more egregious acts of abuse. Despite these claims being "unsupported" during investigations, the parents were required to submit to home inspections and to agree to a parenting plan. The parents protested that the calls were false, and begged police to investigate to find out who was placing the anonymous--and wrongful--calls. Meanwhile, DHS said that, by law, they had to investigate every claim of abuse.
Eventually, the couple figured out a pattern to the calls. Every time one complaint was about to be closed, a new one would open. When they realized another case was to be closed, they left home to stay with their child's grandparents. Sure enough, the anonymous caller made another complaint, and investigators arrived to find that no one was home or had been home to commit the acts described by the caller, giving proof to the couple's assertion that the reports of abuse were false.
Police arrested the couple's neighbors, one of whom was a DHS case worker. The couple remains uncertain as to the motive behind the anonymous tips, but they believe it is because the fake caller thought they were "too loud." The neighbors--a woman and her fiance--have both been arrested and charged with making false reports.
The case is just one illustration of why it is so important not to jump to conclusions just because someone is accused of a crime. It highlights the need for criminal defense in a society in which anonymous tips are sufficient to launch and investigation, and in which the accused rights are trampled in the name of protecting the victim--even if there is no real victim involved.
Certainly, allegations of crimes against children must be taken seriously; however, it is also important to remember that false accusations can and do happen.
An Oklahoma City man is in jail on complaints of nearly a dozen sex crimes after a 17-year-old girl told her DHS caseworker that the man sexually abused her over a span of several years.
According to the girl, John W. Lowery, 43, began molesting her when she was only 11 years old. She says that the man would place her in his lap and "grind on her." Over the next few years, until she was 15, the sexual abuse became increasingly worse. When she was 13, she says, the man bought her sex toys, claiming that young girls her age "needed" them. When she was 14, she says, he told her that she would not be allowed to visit a friend unless she paid "a price." That price, she told her caseworker, was performing oral sex.
The teen says that soon after, the man began raping her on a consistent basis--once or twice every week until she was 15 years old.
She also reports that she saw evidence of child pornography on his computer, claiming to have seen a sexually explicit image of an approximately 7-year-old girl.
Reports do not indicate the relationship between the man and his accuser, but she told her caseworker that she has not had any contact with him since January of this year.
After the teen made her accusations to her DHS caseworker, the worker reported the claims to police, who arrested Lowery on 11 criminal complaints, including one count of sexual abuse of a child, one count of forcible sodomy, and 9 counts of rape.
As of this writing, formal charges have not been filed against the man.
Oklahoma law defines rape in 21 O.S.§ 1111. Current law identifies rape as an act of sexual intercourse occurring under one or more of 9 specific sets of circumstances. Effective November 1, 2015, the law will change to add a tenth definition of rape. Spousal rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse with one's spouse accomplished through the use or threat of force or violence. The remaining 9 forms of rape are non-spousal:
The above defined acts of rape include both first degree rape and second degree (statutory) rape. The item which was added to the state's definition of rape and which will become effective in November is that which refers to a sexual relationship between a foster parent or applicant and a person aged 19 or younger in DHS custody.
The Canadian County Sheriff's Office is active in conducting online stings designed to catch adults attempting to meet minors for sex. In these stings, an undercover deputy will create a fake online profile purporting to be a young teenager, and will then engage in conversations with adults. If the conversation becomes sexual, or if the adult attempts to meet the decoy for sex, deputies make an arrest.
Last week, another person fell prey to their online stings.
In this case, a sheriff's deputy posed online as a 14-year-old girl from Mustang, Oklahoma. Investigators say a 37-year-old man initiated contact with the decoy around 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, and the conversation quickly became sexual. The man allegedly told the decoy that he knew that having sex with her would be illegal, but apparently, he did not let that stop him from pursuing a physical encounter. The pair arranged a meeting by 4:15 p.m. the same day.
Deputies hurried to the meeting place, and when they tried to approach the suspect, he attempted to flee in his vehicle. Deputies boxed him in so that he could not evade arrest.
Canadian County sheriff's deputies arrested Adam McMillen of Oklahoma City. He was booked into the Canadian County Jail on complaints of two counts of soliciting sexual conduct or communication with a minor by use of technology. Yesterday, he was formally charged with one count of lewd or indecent proposals to a child under 16.
Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 (21 O.S. § 1123) prohibits sexual contact or communication by an adult aged 18 or older with a minor under the age of 16. While the law specifically prohibits numerous acts, the defendant in this case is charged under § 1123(A)(1):
"It is a felony for any person to knowingly and intentionally [m]ake any oral, written or electronically or computer-generated lewd or indecent proposal to any child under sixteen (16) years of age, or other individual the person believes to be a child under sixteen (16) years of age, for the child to have unlawful sexual relations or sexual intercourse with any person."
By stating that it is a felony to have a sexually explicit conversation or to attempt to arrange a sexual liaison with a person believed to be a minor under 16, Oklahoma law closes a loophole that would allow a defendant to argue that he or she could not possibly be guilty of indecent proposals to a minor when there was no actual minor involved--only another adult posing as a minor.
Lewd or Indecent Proposals or Acts to a Child Under 16 is a felony sex offense. As a Level 3 offense, conviction mandates lifetime sex offender registration. The associated prison term is 3 to 20 years in prison if the child involved is aged 12 to 15. If the child is under the age of 12, conviction is punishable by 25 years to life in prison.
A day after Easter, a horrific accident in Oklahoma City claimed the life of a 22-month-old girl and her parents. Police say the accident occurred when an impaired driver slammed into the family's vehicle in a T-bone collision near W. Reno and S. Rockwell shortly before 11:30 the night of April 6.
Now, and Oklahoma County judge has ordered the driver in that case, Demetrius Jerrod Price, to stand trial for three counts of first degree manslaughter for the deaths of the toddler and her two parents in the fatal DUI accident.
Police say that Price, 22, had an "overwhelming amount of alcohol" on his breath when they responded to the scene of the accident. They said his speech was slurred and he appeared to be unsteady on his feet. Responding officers allege that Price initially admitted that he had been drinking prior to driving, telling police he "had one," but then he immediately began to back-pedal, denying that he had anything to drink. They said he also attempted to shift blame for the accident, saying that the family's car struck him, rather than the other way around.
In most cases, causing a fatal DUI accident is charged as first degree manslaughter. One of the circumstances under which first degree manslaughter occurs is when a death results during the commission of a misdemeanor. A first offense of DUI is typically a misdemeanor; however, subsequent offenses are felonies. Therefore, a person with a prior DUI conviction who causes a fatal accident will be charged with second degree murder rather than first degree manslaughter.
Price has remained in the Oklahoma County Jail since his arrest. A judge set his bond for the manslaughter charges at $60,000 each; however, he is held without bond on multiple complaints, including charges from unrelated incidents. In addition to a the manslaughter charges and a pending drug possession with intent to distribute charge filed just two and half weeks before the accident, Price faces charges of breaking and entering, second degree burglary, DUI, driving a vehicle without a license, failure to carry security verification, making a false declaration of ownership to a pawnbroker, obstructing an officer, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and possession of contraband in a penal institution.
If convicted of first degree manslaughter, the defendant faces a minimum sentence of four years in prison for each count. First degree manslaughter is a violent felony classified as an 85 percent crime, which means anyone convicted must serve at least 85 percent of his or her sentence before achieving parole eligibility.
An Oklahoma City woman received quite a shock this month when she discovered that a man was secretly recording her in the bathroom.
Police say the woman was in the bathroom of a home when she heard an alarm. She investigated to find the source of the alarm and discovered a cell phone in a floor vent. The woman says that the cell phone was set to record and propped up with a view of the bathroom's shower and toilet.
The woman told investigators that the phone belonged to the home's owner, identified as Bruce Williams, 29. She said that she watched video on the phone, which allegedly showed Williams adjusting and hiding the cell phone. She said she confronted the man, who allegedly admitted to hiding the phone.
Police arrested Williams on a complaint of taking clandestine video.
Oklahoma's "peeping tom" laws are found in 21 O.S. § 1171 - Loitering Around Residence to Watch Occupants. This statute covers traditional "peeping tom" acts as well as more modern acts which rely on technology to do the peeping.
Traditionally, a peeping tom was someone who would hide in the bushes or use binoculars to try to peek through windows at others as they undressed. Section 1171(A) addresses this situation:
Every person who hides, waits or otherwise loiters in the vicinity of any private dwelling house, apartment building, any other place of residence, or in the vicinity of any locker room, dressing room, restroom or any other place where a person has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the unlawful and willful intent to watch, gaze, or look upon any person in a clandestine manner, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor. The penalty for conviction of a traditional peeping tom offense is a maximum of one year in county jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
Section 1171(B) addresses the use of photographic or video equipment to record someone in a state of undress in any place he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony.
The penalty for clandestine photos or videos is much more severe. Conviction is punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Finally, Section 1171(C) addresses taking clandestine photos or videos of a person's private parts when that person reasonably believes he or she is covered. Such images are often called "upskirt" photos or videos:
Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person and capture an image of a private area of a person without the knowledge and consent of such person and knowingly does so under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether the person is in a public or private place shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Like traditional "peeping tom" acts, conviction of violating this subsection carries a possible sentence of one year in county jail and a $5,000 fine.
An Oklahoma City teenager was arrested and booked into the Oklahoma County Jail earlier this week after an 11-year-old boy told a relative that the 16-year-old had sexually assaulted him multiple times. Reports show that the teen was held on $25,000 bond in the case, but an Oklahoma County Jail inmate search indicates that he has been released since his arrest on Monday.
The teen's arrest brings up an important fact about juveniles accused of sex crimes and how they are prosecuted under Oklahoma law. In many cases, crimes committed by minors are handled through the juvenile court system. Sometimes, however, teens accused of crimes are prosecuted as youthful offenders or even adults.
In Oklahoma, minors aged 15, 16, and 17 are charged as adults when they are accused of first degree murder. Juveniles aged 13 or 14 charged with first degree murder may be prosecuted as either adults or youthful offenders.
Youthful offender status serves as a middle ground between juvenile delinquent adjudication and adult charges. Typically a youthful offender is a person aged 15, 16, or 17 who is charged with a violent crime or sex offense.
Juvenile sex crimes that would cause a 15, 16, or 17-year-old to be charged as a youthful offender include first degree rape, first degree rape by instrumentation, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and lewd molestation. A 16 or 17-year-old is also certified as a youthful offender for second degree rape.
So what does it mean if your child is certified as a youthful offender?
The crimes that fall under the Youthful Offender Act are more serious than typical juvenile crimes like shoplifting, vandalism, and underage drinking or DUI. Because of this, the courts find it in the best interest of public safety to prosecute and punish these crimes more severely. However, charging a teen as an adult may not be the best scenario, nor does it offer much hope of rehabilitation.
A youthful offender case is handled much like an adult case. The teen is tried in district court rather than juvenile court, and if convicted, he or she is subject to an adult sentence. Youthful offender records are considered adult records and are not sealed as are juvenile records.
Another important thing to note is that once a child is certified as a youthful offender, he or she is considered a youthful offender in all other criminal proceedings for crimes committed before the defendant turns 18. In other words, even for minor offenses that would normally be handled in juvenile court, the teen will be prosecuted as a youthful offender subject to adult sentencing.
In most cases, if a minor is adjudicated delinquent, he or she is released from the custody of the Office of Juvenile Affairs on or before the age of 18. If a youthful offender in the custody of Juvenile Affairs reaches the age of majority, he or she will not be released by age alone. Instead, the teen will likely be transferred to an adult facility to complete the sentence.
It is important for parents and teens both to understand that in Oklahoma, it is an act of first degree rape to have sexual intercourse with a person who is "unconscious of the nature of the act." Often, juvenile rape charges stem from a night of drinking. High-profile teen rape cases around the nation have resulted from the sexual assault of a teenager too heavily intoxicated to resist a sexual encounter. A first degree rape charge will certify a 15, 16, or 17-year-old as a youthful offender, leaving the teen subject to harsh criminal penalties.
If you or your child is accused of rape, secure legal defense representation as quickly as possible. Call (405) 417-3842 for more information.
