Main Menu
Home News Injustice in Ohio Death row inmate's appeal cites ban on juror smoking Death row inmate's appeal cites ban on juror smoking
Tuesday, 08 August 2006
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Lawyers for a man sentenced to death in the slaying of his ex-girlfriend want the conviction thrown out because, among other reasons, the judge barred jurors from smoking during deliberations.
That made jurors antsy and overly eager to finish the case, according to the appeal of 43-year-old Phillip Elmore, who told the jury before it recommended death that he deserved "the worst punishment."
The Licking County jury deliberated for six hours before convicting Elmore in 2003 of aggravated murder and other charges in the death of Pamela Annarino, 47, a former sheriff's deputy who was beaten and strangled at her home in Newark, 30 miles east of Columbus. Annarino had broken off their relationship, according to testimony, although jurors heard an unsworn statement from Elmore that he didn't know why he killed her.
A week after the guilty verdict, the 12-person jury needed three hours to recommend the death sentence. Common Pleas Judge Jon Spahr would not let them smoke during those deliberations.
"The trial court violated Elmore's fair-trial rights by denying a request by one or more members of the jury to allow smoking of tobacco in the jury room or smoke breaks during deliberations," Elmore's lawyers wrote in his appeal. "The judge's refusal to make any accommodation of jurors' request to smoke predisposed those jurors to agree on a quick decision."
Spahr would not comment on the pending case beyond saying that it was the only capital case he had presided over that involved a jury. The others involved panels of judges.
Prosecutor Robert Becker, who tried the case, said he believes the verdict and sentence will stand despite the smoking angle and other elements of the appeal.
"I don't think I've ever heard of this one. It's relatively novel," he said.
Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University, likewise gave Elmore's appellate team credit for creativity.
"One of the difficulties that will exist in this case is there is no hard evidence. It is speculative that (the denial of) the request to smoke would cause the jurors to change their vote," he said.
The Ohio Supreme Court is to hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
Joseph Edwards, one of Elmore's lawyers, cited several aspects of the appeal, particularly that Elmore's trial lawyers were ineffective, that he considers stronger than the smoking objection. Elmore's attorneys at the time didn't call any of his relatives as witnesses during the sentencing phase of the trial, and they called a psychologist who Edwards said did more harm than good to the defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: The Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com
Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)