Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Michael Bruce ROSS
A.K.A.: "The Egg Man"
Classification:
Serial killer
Characteristics:
Rape
Number of victims: 8
Date of murders: 1981 - 1984
Date
of arrest:
June 28,
1984
Date of birth: July
26,
1959
Victims profile: Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25 / Paula Perrera, 16 / Tammy Williams,
17 / Debra Smith Taylor, 23 / Robin Stavinksy, 19 / April Brunias,
14 / Leslie Shelley, 14 / Wendy Baribeault, 17
Method of murder: Strangulation
Location: Connecticut, USA
Status:
Executed
by lethal injection in Connecticut on May 13,
2005
Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, a Cornell University student,
murdered by Ross on May 12, 1981.
Paula Perrera, 16, of Wallkill, N.Y., murdered by Ross in March 1982.
Tammy Williams, 17, of Brooklyn, Conn. murdered by Ross on Jan. 5, 1982.
Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on June 15, 1982.
Robin Stavinksy, 19, of Norwich, murdered by Ross in November 1983.
April Brunias, 14, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on April 22, 1984.
Leslie Shelley, 14, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on April 22, 1984.
Wendy Baribeault, 17, of Griswold, murdered by Ross on June 13, 1984.
Summary:
On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, Ross accosted nineteen year old Robyn S. on
the grounds of a State Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn
S. into a wooded area and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then
sexually assaulted her and, after ordering her to turn over on her
stomach, strangled her. Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.
On June 13, 1984, Ross accosted seventeen year old
Wendy B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon. After a short
conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall, forcing her to go
with him into a wooded area that led to an open field. There he sexually
assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach, and then
strangled her.
On Easter Sunday, 1984, Ross picked up fourteen year
old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were hitchhiking on
Route 138. Once the girls had entered his car, he drove them over their
protests past their intended destination.
When April B. tried to force
the defendant to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he
disarmed her and continued into Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked
his car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s
feet and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he
assaulted her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her.
Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually
assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and
drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a
culvert.
Ross, a Cornell University graduate who studied
economics, confessed to the murder of all four women and four others
during the same time period. At his trial, the defendant did not deny
having committed the kidnappings, rapes, and murders, and asserted an
insanity defense.
1987, Ross was convicted for the murders of four of
the eight women he confessed to killing. It took the jury 86 minutes of
deliberations to convict him and only four hours to decide on his
punishment. He was the first person executed in Connecticut since May
17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was electrocuted for a spree of
slayings.
Citations:
State v. Ross, 225 Conn. 559, 624 A.2d 886 (1993) (Direct Appeal)
State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994) (Direct
Appeal-Reversed) State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 849 A.2d 648 (2004) (Direct Appeal)
Ross ex rel. Dunham v. Lantz, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1120272 (2nd
Cir. May 12, 2005) (Stay)
Final Meal:
Ross ate the regular prison meal of the day, which was turkey a la king
with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruit and a beverage.
Final Words:
None.
ClarkProsecutor.org
Ross Saga Ends
Execution Concludes Decades Of Legal
Limbo For Families
By Lynne Tuohy - Newsday / Hartford Courant
May 13, 2005
SOMERS -- Serial killer Michael Bruce Ross was
pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. today, the first convict executed in New
England in 45 years.
In the end, the man described as both monster and
manipulator controlled his own fate. He had until 2:01 to call off the
execution by saying he wanted to pursue more appeals. He did not, and
the series of three lethal drugs coursed through his veins. Osborn
Correctional Institution Warden Christine Whidden announced Ross' death
from a podium at 2:28.
Shortly afterward, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Ross alone
is responsible for his fate. "Today is a day no one truly looked forward
to - but then no one looked forward to the brutal, heinous deaths of
those eight young girls," Rell said. "I hope that there is at least some
measure of relief and closure for their families." Ross' body was
removed from the prison by Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the state's chief
medical examiner, and two technicians to do an autopsy.
The ranks of death penalty opponents had swelled to
nearly 300 as they marched through the chilled air to the driveway of
the prison where Ross was executed. Candlelight highlighted expressions
that ranged from tearful to stoic as they learned of Ross' death by word
of mouth rippling through the crowd. Jacob Grossouw, 16 of Enfield, said
he was shocked. "I don't know how to feel. I can't believe they just
killed a man," he said.
Several family members of Ross' victims, however,
said they were grateful for the execution, and afterward took turns at
the podium saying so. Edwin Shelley, father of 14-year-old victim Leslie
Shelley, said, "We have waited 21 years for justice, and I would like to
thank the jury in Bridgeport, the jury in New London and, finally, the
State of Connecticut for finally giving us the justice that our children
are due." Victim Robin Stavinsky's stepmother, Joan Stavinsky, said she
heard the announcement on television about 2:30 a.m. at her home. "I
think I'm a little bit numb," Stavinsky said. "It just doesn't seem
real. You just can't set aside 22 years of this in one instant."
Others were more angry than relieved. "I thought I
would feel closure, but I felt anger, just watching him lay there and
sleep, after what he did to these women, but I'm sure I will feel some
closure soon," said Debbie Dupuis, Robin Stavinsky's sister.
Rell said
the execution ends what has been "a protracted ordeal for the entire
state, none more so than for the families of the victims, who have
suffered for years and still grieve for their lost daughters. It is time
to move forward with compassion for all the families who have lost loved
ones. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the grief felt by the family
of Michael Ross."
Media witnesses described what appeared to be a
shudder, a gasp for air and an otherwise motionless death. Ross, his
wrists and fingers wrapped in gauze, said nothing and looked at no one,
the witnesses said. Ross said "No, thank you," when asked if he wished
to make a final statement, said Kenton Robinson, an editor at the New
London Day.
Shelley Sindland of Fox-61 TV said she heard one
female witness, hidden from Sindland by a curtain separating the media
from the families of Ross' victims, mockingly say, "Oh, are you in pain?"
when Ross seemed to gasp. Sindland said she heard another man utter, "It's
too peaceful."
Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano said: "Today,
with the execution of Michael Ross, there are no winners. The murderous
actions he took so many years ago continue to affect his victims'
families to this very day. ... It is time to forget Michael Ross, but we
should never forget about his victims and we should always embrace their
families. Tonight my heart and prayers go out to them. I hope they
finally feel a sense of justice."
Ross' lawyer, T.R. Paulding, stressed that Ross'
decision "to stop the continuing torture to the families of his victims
was a difficult one. It resulted over a period of time, and is directly
linked to Michael's evolving spirituality, compassion and awareness. It
was a decision that required courage. In the last few months that
courage carried him through the constant urgings of those who would have
him change his mind. He was stripped of his dignity through endless
court proceedings. In the end, Mr. Ross maintained his dignity."
But outside the prison walls, a game of legal
brinkmanship spanning three federal courts from Connecticut to
Washington, D.C., played out until 11 p.m., when the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected efforts by two defense lawyers to halt the execution.
Ross was a 25-year-old insurance agent in June 1984
when he confessed to kidnapping, raping and killing young women over a
three-year period. His victims ranged in age from 14 to 25. "They were
dead as soon as I saw them," he said in a 1994 interview.
Jennifer Tabor said she never thought she would be
able to witness the execution of the man who killed her 19-year-old
stepsister, Stavinsky. Tabor was 12 at the time of the murder, and
hatched a plan in which she would stand outside the gates of the prison
on the morning of Ross' death. "I always pictured myself out there with
the rest of the people, holding a big sign, in favor of his death,"
Tabor said. "I always promised Robin I would be there on that day."
Instead, Tabor arrived in Somers Thursday night as a
witness and with her siblings, Debbie Dupuis and David Riquier,
represented the second generation of those affected by the murders. They
stood in for parents too weary from years of grief to watch the last
chapter of their ordeal.
Tabor issued a statement that was a mix of compassion
and relief. "We feel sorrow for the Ross family and respect their grief
at losing a family member," she said. "We know that the sadness of
losing Robin will always remain, but now the anger caused by Michael
Ross' crimes can begin to fade into a safe place. ... We hope the words,
thoughts and life of Michael Ross will become a faint memory and the
notoriety that surrounded him will finally end."
Before leaving her home in Columbia with her siblings
for the ride to Somers, Tabor said she grabbed a photograph of Robin so
she could have it with her in the room where she watched the execution.
"I just wanted to have it with me, have her with me," Tabor said. As
they drove up Shaker Road toward the prison, Tabor said, she was amazed
at the groups of police officers gathered at every intersection. "There
were cops everywhere," she said.
The dozens of checkpoints they went
through and a long line of orange traffic cones that glowed from her
vehicle's headlights were "intimidating," she said. When they arrived at
the "safe house" where correction officials had them wait before going
to the prison, Tabor saw about 20 people gathered inside. She recognized
some faces from court hearings she attended years ago. Others were
strangers, she said. "It was real quiet," she said. "It was like a dream.
It didn't seem real."
For many, the past five months have seemed similarly
surreal. Ross on Oct. 6 told New London Superior Court Judge Patrick
Clifford he wanted to waive further appeals and proceed to his execution.
Clifford, after questioning Ross at length about his knowledge of
appeals still open to him, set Jan. 26 as the execution date.
Before coming into court in October, Ross fired his
public defenders and hired Paulding, who had been his standby counsel in
the mid-1990s when Ross sought a death sentence rather than undergo a
second penalty phase and revisit the gruesome details of his crimes.
Ross has said since 1994 that he wanted to spare the families of his
victims, and himself, from that torment.
The public defenders who had represented Ross for
nearly 17 years fought to intervene on his behalf and halt the execution.
What followed was a flurry of legal challenges and appeals that ended
only hours before Ross was scheduled to die in late January. And in a
bizarre twist worthy of a novel, it was Paulding who called off the
execution after a searing telephone conference with a federal judge who
threatened his law license and questioned whether Ross was really driven
by despair over years of segregated confinement.
Ross' execution today follows another round of
competency hearings, appeals and last-minute legal machinations by
lawyers seeking to halt the execution. Attorney Diane Polan represented
Ross' sister, Donna Dunham, in efforts to intervene on behalf of her
brother. Antonio Ponvert III sought a temporary restraining order to
stop the execution on behalf of inmates susceptible to "suicide
contagion" if Ross was allowed to willingly go to his death.
Thursday's legal drama began around 10:30 a.m., when
Droney refused to grant a temporary restraining order and rejected
Dunham's bid to intervene. Her lawyer and Ponvert appealed to the U.S.
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Those appeals were heard at
2:30 p.m., using an elaborate network of video relays connecting three
locales: the appeals court in Manhattan, a small conference room
equipped with monitors at the Hartford federal courthouse and a similar
room in a federal court in Vermont, where Appellate Judge Peter W. Hall
resides.
The 2nd Circuit rejected both appeals about 5:30 p.m.
Appeals soon followed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and all parties
involved in the execution countdown remained on tenterhooks until just
after 11 p.m.
Visits consumed most of Ross' last day. He awoke
about 5:45 a.m. and had a breakfast of oatmeal and grapefruit,
Department of Correction spokesman Brian Garnett said. Ross watched
television and read newspapers until 8:10 a.m., when he was moved to the
execution holding cell. It resembles his other open-barred cell at the
old death row at Osborn Correction Institution, except that it is
encased in Plexiglas, with a circle of holes drilled midway down the
front of the door so Ross could communicate back and forth with visitors.
Where formerly Ross could hold hands with visitors,
now he could not. Only priests were allowed physical contact, necessary
so they could give him the Holy Eucharist, which Ross received at 9 a.m.
later he received last rites.
Butler said he and Ross joked Thursday morning about
the "Hannibal Lecter death cell," a reference to the cannibal
psychiatrist in the thriller movie "Silence of the Lambs." Ross lunched
on a cheeseburger and hash browns, and at 3 p.m. chose to have as his
last meal the same thing all the other inmates at Osborn would be eating
for dinner - turkey a la king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread,
fruits and a beverage.
As he ate, protesters were on the last leg of their
five-day, 30-mile march from Hartford. Jim Whitten, 32 of Suffield, and
Christa Elkovich, 26 of Suffield, were among those showing their
support. "Long story short, killing is wrong in any form," Elkovich
said. Rachel Lawler, 20 and a student at St. Michael's College in
Vermont, was in the middle of final exams but said she felt compelled to
come down and show her opposition to the death penalty. "It's hard to
believe it's really happening," she said. "It's hard to believe
Connecticut is murdering someone."
Among the protesters who walked two abreast toward
the prison was attorney Thomas J. Ullmann, head of public defenders in
New Haven County. Ullmann last year prevailed in his defense of Jonathan
Mills, a multiple murderer who had faced the death penalty but was
instead sentenced by a jury to life without parole in prison. Surrounded
by somber protesters, Ullmann said people still could not believe it was
happening. "It's just that they're shocked this is really happening. To
me, as a human being, I feel I have an obligation to be here and help
out. We know we're on the right side of this issue. To say that it's the
law - well, so was slavery at one time. This is another human rights
issue and eventually, we will prevail."
Elizabeth Brancato, 58, of Torrington, whose mother
was murdered 26 years ago, walked the entire length of the five-day
march. She felt that murder victims' families who oppose capital
punishment had to be represented. She said she sees the execution as
state-sponsored homicide. "It feels like we're all doing it and in fact
we are all doing it. It's not the state as some faceless entity. The
state is us. Maybe that's why I've been doing this - to feel less a part
of it."
The last execution in New England occurred in
Connecticut on May 17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was
electrocuted for a series of execution-style robberies and murders. Like
Ross, Taborsky waived his appeals and opted to be executed.
Victim Wendy Baribeault's cousin, Robert Baribeault
III, expressed relief that Ross was finally being put to death. But he
stressed that his cousin's death will always be a part of his family's
life. "His death will give us some closure, but will never bring back
the lives he has taken," Baribeault said. "There will always be an open
wound in the hearts of the families and friends who knew and love these
young ladies. To Michael Ross, may you rot in hell."
Courant Staff Writers Alaine Griffin, Diane Struzzi,
Roselyn Tantraphol and Jeffrey Cohen contributed to this report.
New England sees first execution in 45 years
Reuters News
May 13, 2005
ENFIELD, Conn. (Reuters) - Connecticut prison
officials put serial killer Michael Ross to death by lethal injection on
Friday in the first execution in liberal-minded New England in 45 years.
State officials said that shortly after 2 a.m. EST (0600 GMT), Ross was
administered a chemical cocktail at the Osborn Correctional Institution
in Somers, Connecticut. The drugs sedated him, paralyzed his muscles,
and stopped his heart.
Ross, who admitted killing eight women in the 1980s,
was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. EST (0625 GMT), a senior Connecticut
correctional official said. Ross made no statement before his death.
Witness Gerry Brooks, from Connecticut NBC affiliate
WVIT TV, said that as Ross received the intravenous fluids "there was
gasp and there was a shudder and he did not move again." Another witness
said she heard from the area where the victims' families viewed the
execution a man's voice saying "it's too peaceful" as the lethal dose
was administered.
Edwin Shelley, father of Leslie Shelley who was
murdered by Ross in 1984, said: "We have waited 21 years for justice."
Chris Morano, Connecticut's chief state's attorney, said, "It's time to
forget about Michael Ross. But we should never forget about his victims
and we should always remember and embrace their families."
Although Ross said he was personally opposed to the
death penalty, he wanted his execution to serve as closure for his
victims' families and last year he waived all remaining appeals. For his
last meal, Ross ate the prison's meal of the day, which was turkey a la
king with rice, mixed vegetables, white bread, fruit and a beverage.
Between 200 and 300 people, many praying aloud,
marched to Osborn from a staging area about a mile away in protest at
the execution. Ross was originally set to die in January, but legal
appeals delayed his execution several times. His death sparked much
public debate in the northeast United States, where executions are rare.
Most executions in America take place in southern states. Death penalty
foes around New England were frustrated by Ross' insistence on being
executed, making him what capital punishment experts call a "volunteer."
MURDERER EXECUTED IN CONN.
By Todd Venezia - New York Post
May 13, 2005
At 2:25 a.m. today, Ivy League killer Michael Ross —
who fought for years to hasten his own death — became the first person
to be executed in New England in 45 years. "The execution of Michael
Bruce Ross has been carried out . . . The death occurred at 2:25 a.m.,"
Warden Christine Whidden said shortly after Ross was pronounced dead at
the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn. State officials
said Ross was administered a chemical cocktail that sedated him,
paralyzed his muscles and stopped his heart.
Impassive to the end, Ross refused to request a
special last meal before facing his executioner, dining on the same
plate of turkey à la king, rice, mixed vegetables and fruit served to
the rest of the facility's 18,000 inmates.
Ross, a Cornell University graduate who studied
economics, was put to death by lethal injection for the rapes and
murders of four women in the early 1980s. He had also confessed to the
killings and rapes of four other women in the same period.
Since 1998, Ross had stubbornly refused to appeal his
death sentence. But relatives, public defenders and death-penalty foes
lodged numerous challenges, including one that delayed a scheduled
execution in January. A judge yesterday denied the last of the appeals
filed on Ross' behalf — including one by his sister. Ross spent his last
evening meeting with family, friends and his attorneys inside a holding
cell adjacent to the state's lethal-injection chamber. Among his
possessions was a Bible, a book of Bible verses and some candy, prison
officials said.
Ross said he wanted to end the appeals process, which
has gone on since his conviction in 1987, because he hoped to spare the
families of his victims any more pain. "I owe these people. I killed
their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my
right," the former insurance agent said last year. "I don't think
there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."
As they awaited the execution yesterday, the victims'
families differed on whether Ross' death would bring them closure. "It's
going to be nice to come home and realize that the case is finished and
that he has received his just rewards," said Edwin Shelley, whose
daughter Leslie was 14 when she became Ross' seventh victim. "I think I
will be very relaxed and at ease with myself."
Joan Stavinsky, the stepmother of 19-year-old victim
Robin Stavinsky, told The Post she was unsure if Ross' death would ease
the minds of her family. "I have no idea what it's going to mean in the
big picture," she said. "It isn't going to be bring Robin back, that's
for sure."
Ross was the first person executed in Connecticut
since May 17, 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky was electrocuted for
a spree of slayings. The creepy, mild-mannered Ross began his murderous
orgy in 1981, when he killed Dzung Ngoc Tu, a fellow Cornell student. He
later admitted to strangling her and dumping her body in a gorge. Over
the next three years, he killed seven more times. He was captured in
1985 after a witness to one of the abductions told cops the killer drove
a blue car. Ross, who drove a blue Toyota, confessed under interrogation.
Connecticut Carries Out Its First Execution in 45
Years
By William Yardley and Stacey Stowe - The New York
Times
May 13, 2005
About 300 death penalty opponents held vigil in the
cold and dark outside the rural complex of state prisons where a warden
led Mr. Ross to the execution chamber and an unidentified executioner
began administering a lethal injection into his arm shortly after the
scheduled 2:01 a.m. execution time. "Death occurred at 2:25 a.m. on this
day," Christine Whidden, the warden of one of the prisons, Robinson
Correctional Institution, announced five minutes afterwards.
Mr. Ross, 45, had sought that fatal moment for nearly
a year. In defiance of public defenders and others who wanted to save
him, he chose to forgo further appeals of his death sentence last year.
He said he wanted to ease the pain of the families of the eight teenage
girls and young women he strangled in the early 1980's. He raped most of
his victims.
A graduate of Cornell University and a former life
insurance salesman, Mr. Ross convinced judges he was competent, smirked
at psychiatrists who said he was suicidal and often seemed exasperated
by his inability to reshape his image. "I am not an animal," he once
wrote. In the final moments before his execution on Friday morning,
however, he did not attempt to explain himself. He kept his eyes closed
and never looked through the glass at those witnessing his death.
His execution, at Osborn Correctional Institution,
atop a grassy slope about a mile from the Massachusetts border, was
witnessed by more than 20 people. Nine family members of Mr. Ross's
victims witnessed the execution, as did the two detectives who first
arrested him and a victims' advocate. They shared the witness room with
four people who were there at Mr. Ross's request, as well as five news
media witnesses who were allowed to document the event with notepads and
pens. Heavy gray curtains separated each group.
Media witnesses said the curtain blocking the
execution chamber opened at 2:08 a.m. and revealed Mr. Ross strapped to
a padded table, his arms outstretched. Asked if he wanted to make a
final statement, he said, "No, thank you." A warden then placed a call
from the chamber that lasted five minutes. It was unclear why the call
lasted that long, though the execution procedure required a final check
to see whether any stays of execution had been ordered.
Several media witnesses said the injection began at
about 2:13, after the warden hung up the phone. They said Mr. Ross
clearly reacted to the flow of chemicals. "He definitely gasped and
shuddered," said Shelly Sindland, a reporter for WTIC-TV. She and others
said they did not know whether Mr. Ross felt pain
Ms. Sindland noted that a family member near her said
aloud sarcastically, "Uh, feeling some pain?" After the color appeared
to fade from Mr. Ross's face, another family member, a man, said, "It
was too peaceful."
Family members expressed a range of emotions after
witnessing the execution. Some expressed sympathy for Mr. Ross's family,
none of whom witnessed the execution. "I thought I would feel closure
but I felt anger just watching him lay there and sleep after what he did
to these women," said Debbie Dupuis, the sister of Robin Stavinsky, who
Mr. Ross murdered in 1983 when she was 19.
Lan Manh Tu, whose younger sister Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25,
was raped and murdered by Mr. Ross in 1981, traveled to Connecticut from
Maryland on Thursday for the execution. Mr. Ross was never prosecuted
for her murder, though he confessed to it. Mr. Tu was allowed inside the
prison but he was not allowed to witness the execution. "I'm glad that
we will never have to hear about him again," Mr. Tu said. Lera Shelley,
whose daughter Leslie was 14 when Mr. Ross strangled her in 1984, said,
"My daughter and the other victims finally have the justice they deserve
and now they can all rest in peace."
Outside the prison, in the first moments after the
execution, the approximately 300 people who had sung hymns and talked
quietly became silent. "I feel regret that this state has just killed
somebody," James Russell, 23, a teacher from Longmeadow, Mass., said
shortly after the execution was announced. "It's a barbaric act that
shouldn't happen in a democratic society." Death penalty opponents
marched outside the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn., on
Thursday to protest the execution of the serial killer Michael Bruce
Ross.
Because of his status as a so-called volunteer, Mr.
Ross held the right to change his mind up until the moment of the lethal
injection and to say he wanted to appeal. "All he has to do is say so
and the machinery of death will stop," Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal said during an afternoon news conference at a prison just
down from the prison where Mr. Ross was to die. The execution had seemed
imminent before.
In January, Mr. Ross came within hours of death
before his lawyer, T.R. Paulding, unexpectedly requested a delay. Mr.
Paulding, who has helped Mr. Ross seek execution, cited a potential
conflict of interest after a federal judge threatened earlier that day
to suspend his law license for not questioning Mr. Ross's competency
more thoroughly. A new six-day evaluation in April led to another
finding of competency and a series of court rulings affirming the
finding. One expert said this week that he believed that the execution
would go forward because the state effectively has had a legal
"dress-rehearsal." "I think last time cleared a lot of the underbrush
out of the way," said Michael A. Mello, a professor at Vermont Law
School and a former capital defense lawyer.
Before the execution, on the rural two-lane road that
runs past the prison complex here, drivers beeped horns or shouted
support or disapproval as they passed clusters of correction officers
and state police officers. A line of protesters marched before sundown,
their anti-death-penalty banners rippling in the strong spring breeze. "I'm
not here because of Mr. Ross," said David Cruz-Uribe, 41, who teaches
math at Trinity College in Hartford. "He's not a nice person. I'm here
because I oppose the death penalty."
After midnight, Mr. Cruz-Uribe joined hundreds of
protesters marching toward Osborn as temperatures dipped toward the low
40's. He recited the Hail Mary prayer as his fingers worked the beads of
a rosary.
Lawyers trying to stop the execution argued in court
as late as Thursday afternoon. A motion filed by one of Mr. Ross's
sisters claimed his decision to be executed was involuntary because he
suffered from a combination of mental disorders and psychological
coercion after years of confinement. Another suit claimed that Mr.
Ross's "suicide" would "cause suicide contagion" among other inmates.
Both claims were rejected in federal court late in the day. A three-judge
panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that Mr.
Ross's sister, Donna Dunham, did not have legal standing. In a separate
decision, the court said the possible effect of the execution on other
prisoners was not clear. The United States Supreme Court rejected both
claims late Thursday night.
Mr. Ross's unlikely case pushed Connecticut toward
its 74th execution since it adopted capital punishment in 1893. But it
would be the first since the state electrocuted a murderer nicknamed Mad
Dog in 1960 While rough edges defined that man, Joseph Taborsky, Mr.
Ross was an Ivy League graduate with a sometimes condescending manner
and a masterful grasp of the nuances of death penalty law.
He was first arrested on murder charges in 1984,
three years after he graduated from Cornell. Six of his victims lived in
eastern Connecticut; two lived in New York. He was sentenced to death in
1987 for four of the Connecticut killings.
On Thursday morning, he woke at 5:45 a.m. and "spent
part of the morning watching television, reading newspapers," said Brian
Garnett, a spokesman for the State Department of Correction. By 8:10
a.m. he was moved to a holding cell next to what correction officials
call "the execution enclosure." He took with him a Bible, a book of
Bible verses, a coffee cup and candy. He received communion from a
prison chaplain about 9 a.m. and received visits from his lawyer,
friends and family, speaking to them through holes in plexiglass
covering the cell bars.
His last meal, served at about 3 p.m., was the prison
meal of the day. "That happened to be turkey a la king with rice, mixed
vegetables, white bread, fruit and a beverage," Mr. Garnett said.
Mr. Paulding, speaking to reporters after the
execution, said his client genuinely wanted to help the families of his
victims and had made "a decision that required courage." "This was not
an act of suicide," he said. "He sought to do what he thought was
right," Mr. Paulding added. "He stuck to his principles."
Christopher L. Morano, the chief state's attorney,
whose office prosecuted Mr. Ross, said, "It's time to forget about
Michael Ross, but we should never forget about his victims." Gov. M.
Jodi Rell, a Republican who declined to grant Mr. Ross a temporary
reprieve, said, "Today is a day no one truly looked forward to - but
then no one looked forward to the brutal, heinous deaths of those eight
young girls. I hope that there is at least some measure of relief and
closure for their families."
Theresa C. Lantz, commissioner of the state
department of corrections, noted the historic nature of the execution
for her department and that it was the state's first by lethal injection.
"We have drilled consistently," she said. "Utilizing every contingency
and scenario that we possibly could, 30 times at a minimum." She said
employees involved with the lethal injection had been qualified by a
state-licensed physician. All who are participating, she said, "do so
voluntarily, confidentially and have full access to counseling and
support services if they feel it is needed."
Quotes from Connecticut's planned execution of
Michael Ross
Newsday
May 13, 2005
Here are comments from some of those involved in the
scheduled execution of serial killer Michael Ross:
"With today's execution of Michael Ross there are no
winners. There are no winners. The murderous actions he undertook so
many years ago continue their ripple effects to this very day ... And so
I say today it's time to forget about Michael Ross, but we should never
forget about his victims." - Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano.
____
"After the execution, what will the state of
Connecticut have gained from all of this? The answer seems to be that,
minimally, the state has secured the proverbial pound of flesh for the
crimes of this one outrageously cruel man. But now, what is to be? Has
our thirst for this ultimate penalty now been slaked, or do we, the
people of Connecticut, continue down this increasingly lonesome road? -
Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Flemming Norcott Jr. in his
concurrence and dissent from the ruling that cleared the way for the
execution.
____
"I wish to make it clear that I do not authorize,
endorse concur in or approve of any legal pleadings or petitions filed
in any court anywhere in the time remaining between the execution of
this affidavit and the moment of my execution unless they are filed by
me or attorney T.R. Paulding, Jr." - Ross affidavit.
____
"He stuck to his principles. He didn't let those who
fought for their cause sway him." -- Ross' lawyer, T. R. Paulding.
____
"This has been a protracted ordeal for the entire
state, none more so than for the families of the victims, who have
suffered for years and still grieve for their lost daughters. It is time
to move forward with compassion for all the families who have lost loved
ones. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the grief felt by the family
of Michael Ross. - Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
____
"In accordance with the sentence of capital
punishment imposed by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of New
London, the execution of Michael Bruce Ross has been carried out in the
manner prescribed by the laws of the state of Connecticut," - Christine
Whidden, warden of Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers.
____
"The whole thing is just disheartening to me and I
think we're going to live to regret this day." -Antonio Ponvert III,
attorney for Ross' father, whose last appeal was rejected by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
____
"It's going to be nice to come home and realize that
the case is finished and that he has received his just rewards. I think
I will be very relaxed and at ease with myself." -Edwin Shelley, whose
14-year-old daughter Leslie was killed by Ross in 1984.
____
"I'm sure it's going to be difficult. I have no doubt.
Seeing a life being extinguished with such technological sophistication,
it's a whole new barbarism." -the Rev. John Giuliani, a priest chosen by
Ross to be one of the witnesses.
____
"We feel sorrow for the Ross family and respect their
grief at them losing a family member. We know that the sadness of losing
Robin will always remain, but now the anger caused by Michael Ross'
crimes can begin to fade to a safe place." -Jennifer Tabor, stepsister
of Robin Stavinsky, who was killed by Ross in 1983.
____
We wish to have him destroyed. Mr. Ross is a diseased
animal that society is well justified to flush down its sewer system."
-Lan Manh Tu, brother of Ross' first victim Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, whose
body was found in 1981 in a gorge at Cornell University.
____
"Her youngest brother is about to graduate from adult
ed later this month, that's the event we're concentrating on. We'll
definitely go to that." -Raymond Roode, stepfather of April Brunais, on
why her family decided not to attend the execution.
____
"Capital punishment will be wrong long after Michael
Ross and it was wrong long before him." - Robert Nave, executive
director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty.
____
"May the ending of Michael Ross' life be the
beginning of a renewed determined and sustained movement to abolish
capital punishment in Connecticut." -The Rev. Stephen J. Sidorak Jr.,
executive director of the Christian Conference of Connecticut.
____
"Knowing that they were our age, knowing that he
killed and raped them and stuff I'm putting myself in their shoes." -Lauren
Mashiak, a 17-year-old junior at Somers High, who came out to the prison
to support the execution.
____
"Perhaps finally, there is some satisfaction in
having an end, a fitting end, a just result, when there can be no
satisfaction either in revenge or vengeance or certainly the crime
itself...Today we have shown our criminal justice works, it can reach
closure and it can impose a lawful penalty after a lawful conviction and
lawfully impose that punishment." _State Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal.
Conn. executes killer; first in N.E. since 1960
By
Brian MacQuarrie - Boston Globe
May 13, 2005
Following a flurry of 11th-hour appeals, serial
killer Michael Ross was executed by lethal injection early today at the
Connecticut state prison in Somers. Ross, 45, who admitted that he
murdered eight girls and young women in Connecticut and New York in the
1980s, became the first person executed in New England since 1960. Ross,
who had demanded to be put to death, received a lethal combination of
three drugs as witnesses watched from an adjoining room at the Osborn
Correctional Institution. Ross died at 2:25 a.m., prison officials said.
The witnesses included relatives of the victims, a
priest, and a college classmate of Ross's. Outside the prison walls, an
estimated 300 demonstrators, many of whom held candles and prayed,
protested what they called ''state-assisted suicide." A few death-penalty
supporters also gathered at the site.
Ross, a farm boy from Brooklyn, Conn., who graduated
from Cornell University, waived his remaining appeals last year, fired
his public defenders, and asked to be executed to spare the families of
his victims the pain of further legal action. Ross made no special
request for his last meal, prison officials said, but ate the dinner
served yesterday to all 18,000 inmates in the state prisons: turkey à la
king, rice, mixed vegetables, and fruit. He carried a Bible, a book of
Bible verses, and candy when he was moved yesterday morning to a holding
cell near the death chamber. Ross was visited by family, friends, and
lawyers at various points during the day.
Detectives who arrested Ross in 1984 said they are
convinced that he would have killed again if given the chance. Michael
Malchik, the former State Police detective who took Ross's confession,
called Ross a ''poster boy for the death penalty." ''It's going to be
over," said Edwin Shelley of Griswold, the father of 14-year-old Leslie
Shelley, who was murdered by Ross in 1984.
Yesterday, US District Judge Christopher F. Droney
rejected separate attempts by Ross's father and estranged sister to
block the execution. The rulings were appealed yesterday to the US Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York and to the US Supreme
Court, both of which rejected the challenges. Ross's sister, Donna
Dunham, argued that he was not competent to make the decision to forgo
his appeals.
The suit filed on behalf of Dan Ross, the prisoner's father,
contended that an execution would cause a wave of suicide attempts among
traumatized Connecticut prisoners. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
of Connecticut called the last-ditch lawsuits frivolous and said they ''seemed
designed simply to derail or delay the criminal justice process, which
should go forward to conclusion for the sake of all our citizens, most
particularly the victims' families."
In a hearing before the state Supreme Court
Wednesday, an affidavit submitted by Ross underscored his wish to be
executed. ''I wish to make it clear that I do not authorize, endorse,
concur in, or approve of any legal pleadings or petitions filed in any
court anywhere in the time remaining between the execution of this
affidavit and the moment of my execution unless they are filed by me or
attorney T.R. Paulding Jr.," the affidavit read.
Ross was hours from death in January when Paulding,
Ross's current lawyer, agreed to new hearings on Ross's mental
competency. Paulding had been scolded by a federal judge, who threatened
to revoke his law license for trying to hasten the execution. At those
hearings, two psychiatrists testified that Ross had a personality
disorder that compelled him to choose death to avoid looking like a
coward. Two other specialists disputed those findings and said he was
sincerely remorseful. Based on those hearings, a judge last month again
found Ross competent to decide his fate.
Before the execution this morning, protesters walked
30 miles to the prison from a Colonial gallows site in Hartford. ''Because
the crimes of Michael Ross are so heinous, people often confuse us with
being advocates for him," said Robert Nave, executive director of the
Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty. ''We are fighting
against poor public policy, which is state-sponsored homicide."
Governor M. Jodi Rell decided in December not to
grant Ross a reprieve that could have given lawmakers more time to
debate the state's death penalty. By state law, the Connecticut governor
cannot commute a death sentence. In a January poll of Connecticut voters
done by Quinnipiac University, 70 percent of those surveyed said they
believed that Ross should be put to death. But only 59 percent said they
favored the death penalty.
Over two decades in prison, Ross sought to parlay his
criminal notoriety into celebrity status. He wrote articles for
psychiatric journals and granted dozens of interviews. He distributed a
newsletter from prison that detailed his incarceration and his views
about the death penalty.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this
report.
Family of Ross prosecutor watches case eagerly
Stamford Advocate
Associated
Press - May 11, 2005
NEW LONDON, Conn. -- Back in February, William Satti
found himself driving past the New London Superior Court. He hadn't
planned to take that route to work. But when he saw the television news
trucks parked outside, Satti knew he had to stop.
Inside was condemned serial killer Michael Ross - the
unassuming former insurance agent that Satti's late father, former New
London State's Attorney C. Robert Satti, successfully argued should be
put to death nearly 20 years ago. "For some reason, I hadn't planned on
it, but I was drawn there," said the younger Satti, a public relations
executive with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Satti said he felt the
need to represent his father in the courtroom "because of all his work,
his hard work and dedication he put in over the years to do the right
thing."
On that day in February, Ross was addressing the
court shortly after his execution was put on hold because of questions
surrounding the killer's mental competency. Ross maintains he is
mentally competent to forgo his remaining appeals and finally face death.
A Superior Court judge agreed and Ross is scheduled to be put to death
by lethal injection on Friday at 2 a.m.
During an interview last week from the Satti family
home, which overlooks a cove near Ocean Beach Park, the prosecutor's
widow and one of his sons said they hope Ross will finally be executed.
They want the families of Ross' victims to get the justice that Satti
spent years fighting for on their behalf. "Every once in a while, I wake
up and look out over this beautiful cove and I think of those lovely
children that will never see a sunrise or a sunset, and how the parents
must feel," Maureen Satti said. "It has to be devastating."
C. Robert Satti was the New London County state's
attorney from 1975 to 1995. He died in 2002. Although Satti worked on
countless cases, his family agrees the Ross murders were among the most
notable and the ones that really affected them as well. "This one was
very much part of my life, to be honest with you," Maureen Satti said.
"It was my father's life, from 1984 until his passing in 2002," William
Satti said.
The elder Satti would spend countless hours preparing
for the case, including nights and weekends. His family described how he
would meticulously take notes during the trial and use that information
for more questioning the next day - hoping to tie up any loose ends and
prevent Ross from avoiding death because of a mitigating factor. Maureen
Satti recalled traveling to Bridgeport, almost daily, to watch her
husband at work during the first trial. It was held in Bridgeport
because of the local publicity surrounding the case and the prosecutors
stayed in a hotel during the week.
Although C. Robert Satti - a father of five - didn't
share much about his cases with his family, Maureen Satti recalled her
husband being concerned the victim's families had to drive from eastern
Connecticut to Bridgeport for the trial. Every evening, he would meet
with them after that day's testimony had finished. C. Robert Satti knew
the families were emotionally wrecked by the killings and he feared one
of the fathers might try to shoot Ross when he entered the courtroom,
Maureen Satti said.
Although the prosecutor was a Catholic, he believed
strongly that Ross deserved the death penalty, she said. She said her
husband thought capital punishment was appropriate for the most heinous
cases. In Ross' situation, Satti did not believe that the killings -
eight in total - stemmed from psychiatric problems. "He killed for the
sake of covering up that he raped these people," Maureen Satti said. "He
was a predator."
Ross was ultimately sentenced in July 1987 to six
separate death sentences for killing Wendy Baribeault, Robin Stavinsky,
Leslie Shelley and April Brunais. But in July 1994, the state Supreme
Court overturned the death sentences because a judge incorrectly
excluded a letter from a psychiatric report. The court ordered a new
penalty phase.
Four years later, C. Robert Satti, who had by then
retired, agreed to come back on the scene and work with Ross to speed up
the execution. They came up with an agreement promising the killer would
not oppose the state's efforts to execute him. That same year, however,
a judge ruled the agreement signed by Ross was unconstitutional.
Satti's family said the prosecutor was frustrated
that effort did not work. However, they said he understood why it takes
so long in Connecticut to execute someone. And if he were alive today,
he would accept why Ross' execution still has not been carried out. "He'd
understand and respect the process," said William Satti.
If Ross is finally executed on Friday morning,
Maureen and William Satti said they won't be joyous. Like C. Robert
Satti, they just believe the sentence should be carried out. "I can't
envision my husband sitting here and going, 'whoopee,"' Maureen Satti
said. "He'd just take it very quietly and think, 'the job is done."'
Even in Facing the Needle, a Killer Is Master of His
Fate
By William Yardley - The New York Times
May 12, 2005
HARTFORD, May 11 - The videotape was taken earlier
this year, during a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether Michael
Bruce Ross, a convicted serial killer, is competent to forgo further
appeals of his death sentence. Tilting back in a chair in a prison cell,
Mr. Ross is shown laughing and then offering several enthusiastic thumbs
ups to the camera.
Played over and over on television here in recent
weeks, the image of a killer seemingly smiling at death may be the last
memory many people in Connecticut have of Mr. Ross. At 2:01 a.m. Friday,
he is scheduled to die by lethal injection. He would be the first person
executed in New England in 45 years. For some, the video underscores
claims that Mr. Ross is mentally disturbed and thrives on the attention
surrounding his latest execution date, the second in four months. But
his apparent self-assurance during the evaluation and in recent court
appearances seems to confirm what judges have concluded: he controls his
fate.
"He will always hold in his hand the opportunity to
change his mind," said Christopher L. Morano, the chief state's attorney,
whose office prosecuted Mr. Ross. Until the moment the executioner
administers the lethal injection into Mr. Ross's arm, he can stop the
process by simply saying he wants to appeal. "Under the law, we have no
option but to honor that if he does so," Mr. Morano said. "But that
doesn't mean we will not do all we can to bring finality for the loved
ones of his victims."
Mr. Ross, 45, grew up on an egg farm in eastern
Connecticut and graduated from Cornell University in 1981 with an
economics degree. He was first arrested on murder charges in 1984 and
eventually confessed to strangling eight girls and young women and
raping most of them. He was sentenced to death for four of the murders.
His death sentence was upheld last May by the State
Supreme Court. Mr. Ross has spent much of the time since then pursuing
execution, rather than the array of state and federal appeals he still
has available. Many people close to the case expect the execution to go
forward on Friday. But execution has seemed imminent before.
In January, Mr. Ross came within hours of execution
before his lawyer, T. R. Paulding, unexpectedly requested a delay. Mr.
Paulding, who had helped Mr. Ross seek execution, cited a potential
conflict of interest after a federal judge, Robert N. Chatigny, of
United States District Court, threatened to suspend his law license for
not questioning Mr. Ross's competency more thoroughly.
That led to a six-day competency hearing last month
in State Superior Court in New London that included testimony from four
psychiatrists. Judge Patrick J. Clifford appointed a special counsel,
Thomas J. Groark Jr., to argue that Mr. Ross is incompetent. All four
psychiatrists agreed that Mr. Ross had mental illness that included
bouts of depression and narcissistic personality traits. Two said Mr.
Ross was seeking to commit state-assisted suicide, and two said his
mental health problems did not render him incompetent. Mr. Ross has said
he wants to be executed in order to help heal his victims' families.
Judge Clifford, who had found Mr. Ross competent
after a one-day hearing in December, found him competent again after the
April hearing. The State Supreme Court upheld that finding on Monday,
four months after upholding the earlier competency finding.
Others who have filed motions to prevent the
execution have failed. Mr. Ross dismissed public defenders last year,
and except for Judge Chatigny, courts have since ruled that they lack
legal standing in the case. More motions were filed on Wednesday, with a
lawyer representing a sister of Mr. Ross's asking a federal court to
review whether Mr. Ross is making his decision voluntarily. The State
Supreme Court had rejected the claim earlier in the day. Another suit,
filed Wednesday on behalf of state inmates, claims that Mr. Ross's
execution would "cause suicide contagion among suicidal and
suicide-prone prisoners." Those motions were pending late Wednesday.
Mr. Ross issued an affidavit Wednesday saying any
suits purportedly filed in his interest were "unwarranted, unauthorized
and against my wishes." Mr. Morano, the chief state's attorney, said his
office had prepared countermotions in advance, anticipating various
legal arguments. "I'm sure that something will pop up that we haven't
thought of," Mr. Morano said. "We'll be able to respond quickly should
that occur."
About two dozen death-penalty opponents have spent
the week walking the 30 miles from Trinity College in Hartford to
Somers, where Mr. Ross is to be executed at Osborn Correctional
Institution just south of the Massachusetts border. "A serial killer
should not be allowed to dictate public policy," said Robert Nave,
director of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, who is
leading the march. "Michael Ross is totally in control."
Corrections officials say their plan to administer
lethal injection to Mr. Ross is identical to what it was last winter. At
2:01 a.m. Friday, the executioner is to begin administering a lethal
dose of 2,500 milligrams of thiopental sodium with sodium chloride
through an intravenous tube in the arm of Mr. Ross, who will be strapped
to a padded table. The executioner will then administer 100 milligrams
of pancuronium bromide, followed by potassium chloride.
Several people are scheduled to witness the execution.
Mr. Ross requested three witnesses: Kathy Jaeger, a spiritual advocate
who meets with him regularly; one other spiritual adviser; and a
freelance writer working on a book about him, Martha Elliott. Several
relatives of his victims and five members of the news media will witness
the execution. Mr. Paulding said that he met with Mr. Ross on Wednesday
morning and that his client was determined to be executed. "He's totally
committed to it," he said.
How Michael Ross spent his last day
Newsday
May 12, 2005
SOMERS, Conn. (AP) - Here is how serial killer
Michael Ross spent the day before his execution:
5:45 a.m. - Woke up.
6:00 a.m. - Ate oatmeal for breakfast.
6 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. - Read the newspaper, watched
television.
8:10 a.m. - Moved to the holding cell next to the
death chamber. He took with him a Bible, a book of Bible verses, some
candy and a coffee cup.
9 a.m. - Received communion.
11 a.m. - Ate a cheeseburger and hash browns for
lunch.
11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Visited by family, friends and
attorney.
3 p.m. - Ate final meal. He chose to eat the same
meal served to all inmates on Thursday - turkey a la king, rice, fruit,
mixed vegetables and white bread.
3 p.m. - Continued receiving visitors.
(Source: State Department of Correction)
Ross '81 Executed by Lethal Injection
The Cornell Sun
May 13, 2005
Michael Ross '81 was pronounced dead by lethal
injection early this morning in New England's first execution in 45
years, at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Conn. "The
execution of Michael Bruce Ross has been carried out," said Warden
Christine Whidden at 2:25 a.m., according to an AP report.
In 1987, Ross was sentenced to death for the murder
of four Connecticut women in the early 1980s. The state supreme court
overturned his death penalty ruling in 1995, only to reinstate it in May
2000.
Last year, Ross hired an attorney to speed up his own
execution. His decision to forego any appeals caused a flurry of legal
activity over the past few months. "There are people who can't take it
anymore, but who are going to show people how strong and powerful they
are," said Dr. Stuart Grassian at a hearing reported by the AP. "He's
trying to go down in a blaze of glory like these guys did." "I owe these
people. I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do
that. This is my right," Ross told the AP last year. "I don't think
there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."
300 people congregated outside the prison while Ross
was being put to death.
On May 14, 1981, Dzung Ngoc Tu, a 25-year-old Cornell
graduate student studying agricultural economics, was declared missing.
Three days later, her body was found at the bottom of Fall Creek. In the
following years, it became increasingly clear that Tu was the first
fatality in a series of eight sexual assault-turned-murders committed by
Michael Ross '81, although he was never prosecuted or convicted of the
crime.
Ross dies as 17-year drama ends
Michael Ross finally got his wish early this morning
By Michael P. Mayko and Liz White -
Connecticut Post
May 13, 2005
SOMERS — Just four days shy of the 45th anniversary
of Connecticut's last state-sanctioned killing, an executioner pumped a
poison cocktail into the serial killer's veins. Minutes after 2 a.m.,
the 45-year-old Cornell graduate — who admitted to murdering eight women
in New York and Connecticut and raping most of them — died, strapped to
a gurney with strips of Velcro.
A flurry of 11th-hour lawsuits, appeals and
demonstrators' pleas failed to stop the execution. And Ross, a former
insurance salesman from Jewett City, remained steadfast in his refusal
to do so. To the end he insisted he was going forward with his own death
to spare his victims' families more grief. "I killed their daughters,"
he said in explaining his decision to forgo further appeals. "If I could
stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right."
It has been more than 17 years since Ross was
sentenced to death for multiple murders and the tortuous process of
appeals, hearings and execution dates commenced. Demonstrators on both
sides of the death penalty issue were drawn to the execution scene late
Thursday.
Among those against executing murderers was Sister
Eileen Reilly, of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Wilton. "I am just
so adamantly opposed to the state of Connecticut taking anyone's life in
my name," she said, at the Somers Congregational Church, where about 150
people were in attendance at an interfaith vigil at 11 p.m. Thursday.
"The state of Connecticut is saying we are doing this and I need to
stand up and say not me.' "Violence begets violence," she added. Reilly
said the whole Northeast was watching Connecticut, and she feared that
executions might spread to other New England states.
Also, at the church was Stephen Kobasa of Bridgeport,
a teacher at Kolbe-Cathedral High School. "You start with your own
conscious & To refuse to be associated with this; to refuse the state's
direction that somehow this is done in our name," he said. "Just the
very idea of knowing you're going at a particular day and hour, I mean,
I don't think one can imagine what that must mean to the psyche," he
said. "How does one bear that knowledge." If the execution takes place,
Kobasa said, "I'm hopeful that the horror that will accompany the
reality renews people's commitment to the abolition of the death penalty."
Kobasa said people don't want to look at Ross as a human being, but as a
"demon or animal" and, thus, fit for killing.
For Ross, Thursday began like every other day. He was
awakened at 5:45 a.m. and was served breakfast 15 minutes later,
according to Brian Garnett, Department of Correction spokesman. Then, at
8:10 a.m., Ross grabbed his Bible, a book of Bible verses and some
candy, before making the short walk with corrections officers to a
holding cell next to the execution chamber at the Osborn Correctional
Institution.
There he met with friends and family members
throughout the day. The last visitor was to be sent away at 1:30 a.m.
Ross received Communion at 9 a.m. He made no request for his last supper.
Instead he chose to eat the same main course served to the state's
18,000 other inmates. Meanwhile, corrections officials were busy making
sure everything was in place for Ross' date with the first execution in
New England in 45 years. No less than 30 practice runs had been
accomplished by late Thursday. At 6 p.m., 9 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.,
corrections officials checked two telephone lines in the execution
chamber to ensure they were working for any last-minute reprieve.
However, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said no last-minute reprieve would be coming
from her.
Corrections officials monitored the courts throughout
the day in case one should order the execution delayed. The 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected two last-minute appeals
from Ross' relatives late Thursday afternoon, and the U.S. Supreme Court
was denied final appeals late Thursday night. Ross' last scheduled
execution, on Jan. 29, was called off about an hour before it was to
take place.
Hours earlier, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N.
Chatigny threatened to pull Ross' attorney's law license for not doing
enough to determine his client's competency. That request set off a
whole new set of hearings in state court. Ross was given another lawyer
and was deemed mentally competent in his decision to request no appeals
be filed on his behalf. Still that ruling was challenged and rejected by
the state Supreme Court last week. By late morning Thursday, death
penalty protesters completed a 30-mile walk begun Sunday from Hartford
to the prison.
To reduce the possibility of any confrontations, the
Department of Correction set up separate gathering areas for pro- and
anti-death penalty groups. At about 9 p.m., anti-death demonstrators
gathered for a 2-hour interfaith prayer vigil. At midnight,
demonstrators on both sides were permitted to march within 50 feet of
the prison. High above them Trooper One, the Connecticut State Police
helicopter hovered. It was prepared to chase any aircraft that
approached within 1,000 feet of the prison.
By 12:30 a.m., the witnesses selected to view the
execution boarded a van to take them to the prison's entrance. At 1:40
a.m., they entered the witness observatory. Ross was to be led to the
execution chamber and strapped to a gurney at 1:30 a.m. A catheter was
to be attached to each of his arms. The left one was to carry the fatal
dose. The first injection was to be a sedative called thiopental sodium,
administered in 2,500 milligrams to relax his body. The next, 100
milligrams of pancuronium bromide is designed to paralyze him. The last,
120 milligrams of potassium chloride, is supposed to stop his heart and
kill him.
Once the lethal substance stops flowing into Ross'
veins, a curtain would close over the witness observatory. It won't
reopen. The last execution in Connecticut took place in 1960 and also
involved a serial killer, Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky. He did not prey on
young women. He killed anyone who came into his path during a robbery.
He confessed to six murders and was electrocuted on May 17, 1960. Ross'
victims ranged from 14 to 25 years of age. The two youngest were 14-year-olds,
April Brunais and Leslie Shelley.
Edwin Shelley, Leslie's father, will be one of the
witness to the execution. "It's going to be nice to come home and
realize that the case is finished and that he has received his just
rewards," Shelley said Thursday. "I think I will be very relaxed and at
ease with myself."
Penalty supporters say they are happy Michael Ross
will die
By Amy Beth Preiss - Norwich Bulletin
May 13, 2005
ENFIELD-- When it comes to Michael Ross, a man who
identified himself only as Richard S. from West Springfield, Mass., says
he supports the death penalty. "I'm really out here to protest the
protesters," Richard said. "I think it's hypocritical of these people
that they defend the most outrageous causes."
Wearing a baseball cap reading, "Grateful Citizens
for the appreciation of veterans," Richard came to Somers Thursday night
to show his support for the execution of Ross. He sat in Parking lot B
south of the Robinson Visitor's Center where he set up a 4 foot-by-7
foot, handmade sign that said: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." It
criticized liberal ideas such as defending mass murderers, burning the
American flag and defending America's enemies. "How can they defend a
mass murder tooth and nail?" he asked. "They also defend America's
enemies like the Taliban and al Qaida as well as other anti-American
causes. But not one of them were out here when Terri Schiavo starved to
death."
Richard S., who is not a war veteran, said Ross took
a lot away from the victims' families, but has shown remorse and wants
to die. "He wants to make it right by the families," Richard S. said. "I
support his decision. The judges are also so radical, they don't
hesitate to starve a woman to death, but they'll go out of their way to
help a mass murderer."
By 6:30 p.m., a group of teenage girls came to the
site to make their own signs and show their support for the death
penalty. "I was chanting this all day in school," said Kaylah Winter, 16
of Somers, who was a holding a sign that said, "Turn Ross into Moss."
Her younger sister, Ashley, said they learned in
school all about the Hammurabi code and that the punishment should fit
the crime. Both sisters said they agree with this teaching. "You can't
tell me that he wasn't competent to tell us he wants to die, but he knew
he should kill those girls," said Ashley Winter, 14, also of Somers. "He
deserves to die. Like I said, the punishment should fit the crime. Plus,
why should we keep him alive if it's causing our parents to pay more
taxes?"
Lauren Mashiak, 17, also of Somers, said she is on
the fence when it comes to the death penalty, but she supports the
execution of Ross. "I'm not sure I totally agree with it on every case,
but on this one I think he should die," Mashiak said.
ROSS' LAST DAY
5:45 a.m.-- Woke up.6:00 a.m.-- Ate oatmeal for
breakfast.6 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.-- Read the newspaper, watched television.8:10
a.m. -- Moved to the holding cell next to the death chamber. He took
with him a Bible, a book of Bible verses, some candy and a coffee cup.9
a.m.-- Received communion. 11 a.m.-- Ate a cheeseburger and hash browns
for lunch.11 a.m. to 3 p.m.Visited by family, friends and attorney.3
p.m. -- Ate final meal. He chose to eat the same meal served to all
inmates on Thursday -- turkey a la king, rice, fruit, mixed vegetables
and white bread.3 p.m.-- Continued receiving visitors.
Source: State Department of Correction
For a victim's parents, the quest for execution
By Stacey Stowe - The New York Times
May 13, 2005
GRISWOLD, Connecticut In the 21 years since Leslie
Shelley was strangled by Michael Ross, the Connecticut serial killer
whose execution was scheduled for Friday morning, her father has
remained haunted by one rhetorical question. "Can you imagine how scared
that little girl was?" Edwin Shelley asked, emotion sandpapering his
voice and fogging his sunglasses. "And people tell me to turn the other
cheek." Shelley and his wife, Lera, have spent more years trying to
ensure that Ross is executed than they had with their daughter. She was
14 when she died, one of eight girls and young women Ross murdered in a
three-year period in the early 1980s.
Twice sentenced to die, the subject of numerous
appeals, pleadings and psychiatric exams, Ross has followed a path to a
sentence of death by lethal injection that has been anything but
straight. The Shelleys, more than any of the other families of his
victims, have accompanied him on that labyrinthine journey, driven by
one goal: his execution. "I don't think he's mentally ill," Lera Shelley
said of Ross. "He might have a mental disorder, but he graduated from
Cornell and he knew right from wrong."
After their daughter's murder, the Shelleys scoured
court documents, police records and newspaper articles connected with
the case. Edwin Shelley, 66, worked as a postman until 1992. His wife,
61, is a retired mental health aide who worked at a state psychiatric
hospital. After Leslie died, they also became legal experts, attending
every day of Ross's two trials and his other court proceedings. He was
convicted of killing their daughter; he confessed to her murder and the
murders of seven other girls and young women. Most of the hearings
involved his death sentence.
"When the guards brought him into the courthouse, I
was close enough," Edwin Shelley said, smacking at the air, "to touch
him." "You could have killed him," Lera Shelley said. "I could have,"
her husband answered. They followed the case for "the girls," he said,
not just Leslie but the seven others Ross killed. They described a
compulsion to ensure that Ross did not escape death with an insanity
defense.
On Wednesday, the Shelleys talked about their
daughter while they fished off a wooden bridge above Kinne Brook, near
their house in eastern Connecticut. They remembered her one and only
home run in softball when she was 13, how she liked to wait up for her
mother to finish the night shift so they could play cards and talk, how
she could be stubborn but was "just a little sweetheart, pretty as a
picture." "You think you remember a lot, you got the face visualized,
but you don't remember that much after 21 years," Edwin Shelley said.
In good weather, the Shelleys drive their pickup down
to the brook, where they fished with Leslie and her siblings - an older
brother and sister and a younger sister - in the days when they counted
themselves lucky, when all their kids were alive. Only three reached
adulthood, and the Shelleys have eight grandchildren and two
great-grandchildren.
On that Easter Sunday afternoon, April 22, 1984, when
Leslie asked to go to the movies with her best friend, April Brunais,
14, who lived two houses away, her father said yes. April's mother was
giving them a ride home, they said. Instead, the girls hitchhiked home.
Ross picked them up and drove them to a secluded spot in the woods,
according to court documents. He ordered Leslie into the trunk of his
car, where she could hear April's cries as Ross raped and strangled her
friend. After apologizing to Leslie, he knelt on her back and killed
her. The girls' bodies were found two months later.
In the months and years after Leslie died, the
Shelleys met with the families of Ross's victims and with relatives of
other murder victims. They met with state legislators and worked to
establish a prison psychiatric review board. They persuaded state
officials to hire victims' advocates for each county.
The Shelleys planned to be at the execution of Ross,
as they were last January when it was called off just hours before its
scheduled time. "The media will be on one side and Ross's family on the
other, and we'll be right here," Edwin Shelley said, lining his feet on
the slats of the bridge and motioning an alignment with an invisible
Ross. "Dead center."
Connecticut executes serial killer Michael Ross
By
Karen Lee Ziner - Providence Journal
May 13, 2005
SOMERS, Conn. - Serial killer Michael Bruce Ross shut
his eyes, swallowed hard, and died with a shudder and a gasp at about
2:14 a.m. today. And with that, Connecticut became the first state in
New England in nearly 45 years to carry out an execution.
``You could see the life draining out of his face,’’
said Shelly Sindland of WTIC Fox 61, one of five media witnesses who
watched Ross die in the execution chamber of Osborn Correctional
Facility.
At a news conference shortly after Ross was put to
death by lethal injection, media witnesses described Ross’s final
moments, and family members of some of his victims said they believed
justice had been served. Edwin Shelley, whose daughter Leslie Shelley
was murdered with her best friend, April Brunais, said early this
morning, ``We have waited 21 years for justice. I’d like to thank the
State of Connecticut’’ and all the law enforcement agencies involved, ``for
giving us the justice our children deserved.’’
Meanwhile, hundreds of people who stood in a silent
prayer vigil outside the Osborn facility began streaming back down the
hill toward waiting buses. The protesters had begun their vigil with a
mile-long march shortly after midnight, then waited in the cold, holding
banners and signs against the death penalty, chatting quietly or
listening while some people prayed aloud. Twenty minutes before the
scheduled execution, the protesters lit candles, then fell silent until
word came at 2:30 a.m. through jingling cell phones, that Ross was dead.
Elizabeth Diaz and Linda Preate relight their candles
as they joined other protesters making their way to the Osborn
Correctional Facility in Somers, Conn., early this morning. The
execution followed months of legal wrangling over whether Ross was
mentally competent to decide not to pursue further appeals. In January,
he twice came within hours of being executed before the courts stepped
in and granted temporary stays.
He had been on death row since 1987 for the kidnap-murders
of four young Connecticut women in the early 1980s. Ross confessed to
killing four other women, two from Connecticut and two whom he killed
when he was a student at Cornell University. He was convicted in three
of those cases, but was never prosecuted for the murder of Dzung Ngoc
Tu, who was a graduate student at Cornell when she became his first
victim. Debbie Dupris, sister of murder victim Robin Dawn Stavinsky,
said, ``Finally, justice has been served and I know our sister Robin
Dawn Stavinsky is looking down upon us."
Dupris added, ``None of you know what we went through
tonight. I thought I’d feel closure, but I felt anger watching him lay
there and sleep – after what he did to these young women.’’ A statement
from the state’s Department of Correction said, ``Death occurred at 2:25
a.m. on this day, after the administration of a lethal injection at the
Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers Connecticut.’’
Media witnesses said that a curtain opened at 2:08
a.m. onto the sight of Ross lying strapped to a gurney with his eyes
closed and a spotlight shining down on him in a dim execution chamber.
He was asked, "Inmate Ross, do you wish to make a final statement?" Ross
replied, "No thank you."
Edwin Shelley, the father of one of Michael Ross'
victims, is joined by other victim's family members for a press
confererence this morning after the execution of Michael Ross. Drugs
were apparently administered at about 2:13 a.m., as soon as a warden in
the execution chamber hung up the phone.
Gerry Brooks, a reporter for WVIT NBC 30, said, "It
was very very quiet in there.’’ "He never looked … he just lay there
with his head back, looking directly up at the ceiling,’’ said Brooks. "There was a gasp, there was a shudder, but that was it. The man barely
moved other than that shudder. And at 2:15, the man was gone,’’ Brooks
said.
Steve Kalb of the Connecticut Radio Network reported
that Ross was strapped down, ``and his fingers were all taped closed at
the end. He shuddered a bit after the first drugs were administered. He
was flesh-colored when we walked in – he was ashen when we left. It
almost seemed surreal. His eyes were closed, it was like, `Go ahead
let’s just end this.’ ‘’
A statement issued jointly by Kevin T. Kane, state’s
attorney for the New London judicial district and Chief State’s Attorney
Christopher L. Morano said, "This death sentence resulted from a
unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve that was exhaustively scrutinized
and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut and the
Supreme Court of the United States. The penalty was set by the General
Assembly and the evidence and the law called for it.’’
Kane and Morano also stated, "Our only sympathies
are with these brave families, who have been victimized again and again
with each step in this process. May they find some element of peace in
the conclusion of the duly ordered legal proceedings in this matter.’’
ProDeathPenalty.com
The sentencing of serial killer Michael Ross for the
1982 killing of 16-year-old Paula Perrera marked a strange ending to a
nearly two-decade old case. Orange County Court Judge Nicholas DeRosa
sentenced Ross, who is to be returned to death row in Connecticut, to 8¤
to 25 years in prison for the 1982 rape and strangulation of the Valley
Central High School girl. DeRosa said he had nothing to say to Ross. So,
he spoke to Paula's family instead. He said Ross will ultimately be
judged in the next life. "That's the only comfort," he said, "if you can
take comfort in anything."
Ross was tied to the case by DNA evidence last year,
after state police investigators secured a confession in a Connecticut
prison. "Paula's now been dead longer than she was alive," said Alicia
Catlos, Paula's aunt. Catlos spoke for the family, saying that many of
Paula's family "just don't even want to be in the same room as Michael
Ross."
Ross, 42, never looked up from the defense table as Catlos spoke.
The pasty-faced man wore his longish brown hair combed straight back,
big eyeglasses, a white shirt, and jeans turned up about four inches at
the cuff. He has been convicted in Connecticut of six killings of young
girls.
Ross's brutal killing of Paula Perrera on March 1, 1982, damaged
the girl's family and the effects linger to this day, Catlos said.
Paula's younger brother left home soon after the killing. Her
grandmother had to live with burying a granddaughter. John Geidel, the
Orange County senior assistant district attorney who prosecuted the
case, noted that Ross's sentencing won't have any effect on his ultimate
fate. But, he said, it still was important. Paula Perrera "could have
been the sister, daughter of anyone in this community," he said. Defense
lawyer Gary Abramson, the chief attorney of the Orange County Legal Aid
Society, thanked Geidel and the district attorney's office for bringing
the case to a close.
The plea Ross took last month to first-degree
manslaughter spared the Perrera family of what would have been "an
emotionally damaging" trial. Ross spoke briefly, saying he never denied
killing Paula Perrera, that he had confessed as far back as 1987. Still,
he said, he thanked state police Investigator Charles Auld for the
detective work that led to Ross' return to Orange County. "I've never
hidden what I've done," he said. "I regret that this has taken so long
to be taken care of."
Edwin Shelley, father of 14-year-old victim Leslie
Shelley, says any sympathy for Ross is misplaced. "If you recall what he
did to eight young women, it's hard to have sympathy for a man like that,"
he said. "I don't care how he dies, as long as he does."
List of victims: Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, a Cornell
University student, killed May 12, 1981. Paula Perrera, 16, of Wallkill,
N.Y., killed in March, 1982. Tammy Williams, 17, of Brooklyn, killed Jan.
5, 1982. Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold, killed June 15, 1982.
Robin Stavinksy, 19, of Norwich, killed November, 1983. April Brunias,
14, of Griswold, killed April 22, 1984. Leslie Shelley, 14, of Griswold,
killed April 22, 1984. Wendy Baribeault, 17, of Griswold, killed June
13, 1984.
National Coalition to Abolish the
Death Penalty
Michael Ross - May 13, 2005 - 2:01 a.m. EST
The state of Connecticut is scheduled to execute
Michael Bruce Ross, a white man, on May 13, 2005 for the 1983 and 1984
New London County murders of Robin Stavinsky and minors Wendy Baribeault,
Leslie Shelley, and April Brunais. All four victims were white.
If the death sentence is carried out, it will be the
first execution in Connecticut in nearly 45 years. In 1994, the Supreme
Court overturned Ross's death sentence because the jury had not been
able to consider evidence that the murders were the result of sexual
sadism, a psychiatric disorder. At a re-sentencing in 2000, the jury
rejected the sexual sadism claim as a mitigating factor and once again
sentenced Ross to death.
Ross, a graduate of Cornell University, has been
diagnosed with mental illness by several mental health professionals,
including the state’s own psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Miller.
According to evidence presented at trial, Ross’
childhood consisted of abuse from his mother. His siblings testified at
trial that he often received the brunt of their mother’s anger through
physical and mental abuse. Ross’ mother was institutionalized twice for
issues pertaining to suicidal tendencies and for the abuse of her
children.
One psychiatrist who evaluated Ross, Dr. Borden,
stated, “All you have to do is look at the Norwich hospital records…and
right there in black and white they talked about the child abuse going
on….” Borden went on to note that there is reason to believe that the
abuse was serious as it was rarely documented at that time.
After spending years trying to prove that he is
suffering from a mental illness which he says drove him to rape and kill
eight women in total, Ross now says he prefers to be executed. He claims
he believes it to be the least painful scenario for the families of his
victims.
The execution of the mentally ill is a deplorable
violation of international human rights standards. In April 2000, the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights urged all states that maintain
the death penalty "not to impose it on a person suffering from any form
of mental disorder” and “not to execute any such person."
Ross was schedule for execution on Jan. 26, 2005 but
received a stay when questions regarding his competency and legal
counsel halted his execution.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles is not
able to grant clemency because Ross has refused to file a clemency
petition at this time. Please write to Gov. Jodi Rell asking her to
grant Mr. Ross clemency on the grounds that the execution of the
mentally ill violates international human rights standards.
The Crime Library
Special Feature: Connecticut Serial Killer Michael
Ross, from Rachael Bell, Ph.D.
Daniel and Patricia Ross' marriage was beset with
problems from the beginning. The troubles began while Patricia ("Pat")
was in high school and became unexpectedly pregnant, which led to their
forced union. According to a 1996 article by Martha Elliott in The
Connecticut Law Tribune, "Pat wanted no part of the marriage or of being
the wife of a chicken farmer in Brooklyn, Connecticut." Yet, at the time
she had little choice.
Michael Ross was born on July 26, 1959. He would be
the first of four children born to the hapless couple over the space of
five years. Elliott claimed that during Michael's youth there was
evidence that his mother, wrought with psychiatric problems, mentally
and physically abused him. In fact, Pat purportedly became so
psychologically unstable and volatile towards her children that she was
admitted to a psychiatric institution on at least two separate occasions
and Daniel eventually became the primary guardian of the children.
Elliott further suggested that when Michael was 8, there was evidence
that his teenaged uncle, who babysat him and formed a close bond with
the boy, sexually abused Michael before committing suicide at the age of
14.
Despite the trauma Michael endured, he managed to
excel in school. He had a special interest in animal science and dreamed
of one day owning his own farm. In 1977, after graduating from Killingly
High School, Michael went on to study agricultural economics at Cornell
University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
While at school, Michael was socially active and
joined several organizations, including the Alpha Zeta fraternity and
the Future Farmers of America, Katherine Davis reported in the Cornell
Daily Sun in October 2000. Moreover, he became involved in several
relationships with some beautiful young co-eds, one to which he became
engaged. However, Elliott claimed that the relationships always ended in
failure and Michael's "dream of the perfect family began to be crowded
by other fantasies -- disturbing, violent, sexual fantasies."
It didn't take long for his fantasies to spiral out
of control. During his second year at school Michael started to stalk
young women. Eventually his violent sexual urges took on a new dimension
when he began raping many of the women he stalked. Amazingly, he evaded
capture for a couple years. However, in September 1981 shortly after his
graduation he finally landed himself in jail for assaulting a young
teenaged girl.
At the time of the incident, Michael was working as a
management trainee for a Cargill, Inc. in North Carolina, Rebecca James
reported in a Syracuse online article. During a business trip to
Illinois, he kidnapped a 16-year-old girl, dragged her into the woods
and gagged her before being interrupted by the police in mid-activity.
Michael was arrested for unlawfully restraining the girl, was fined $500
and put on probation.
The police had no idea that the man they arrested and
subsequently let go was responsible for not only assault but something
much more sinister. That May, the body of Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, was
discovered in Fall Creek located at the bottom of a gorge in Ithaca, New
York. Initially police believed that she committed suicide. Eventually,
they realized that Dzung was actually the victim of a brutal rape and
murder. Michael's violent fantasies had taken a deadly toll and Dzung
would be considered his first known murder victim.
Other Chapters: 1. Paula Perrera, 2. Michael Ross, 3.
Michaels Murder Rampage, 4. A Deadly Year, 5. Truth and Consequences, 6.
Sexual Sadism, 7. Death Pact, 8. Waiting to Die, 9. Bibliography, 10.
The Author.
Serial Killers A-Z
Michael Ross
A raging sexual sadist, Michael Ross raped and
murdered at least six women over In the early 1980's in Connecticut and
possibly New York. A graduate of Cornell university with a high I.Q.,
Ross' first known murder took place in Brooklyn on January 5, 1982, when
he abducted and killed Tammy Williams, 17. Later that spring Ross spent
time in a mental instiution after a failed attack on an female off-duty
police officer but apparently wasn't helped by his incarceration. On
June 15 he killed again when he found Debra Taylor wandering a rural
road in search of a gas station. Her skeletal remains were found were
not discovered until late October. By that time Ross was serving a four
month jail term for assault charges stemming from a seperate incident.
It wasn't until November 16, 1983, that Ross killed
again. Robin Stravinsky disappeared in Norwich, Connecticut, never to be
seen alive again. Her body was discovered about a week later. Then on
April 22, 1984, he managed a double killing in Griswold, Connecticut,
when he murdered 14-year-old neighbors April Brunais and Leslie Shelley.
Ross followed that up in June with the murder of Wendy Baribeault whose
body was found on June 15. Witnesses reported seeing a compact car in
the area and when police ran through the owners of similar vehicles,
they landed on Ross and coerced a swift confession from the killer,
including two killings in New York that have never been pursued. The
helpful Ross also led police to the unknown dump sites of Shelley,
Brunais, and Williams.
By July of 1987 Ross had racked up 120 years in
prison and four death sentences for his crimes, though Connecticut
hasn't put anyone to death in about 30 years. Originally seeking swift
end to his saga, Ross began to fight his penalties in the 1990's and
managed to get his death sentences overturned. In May of 2000 the
sentences were reinstated after a new penalty hearing.
8/17/2001-Ross was arrainged on August 6, 2001, for
the murder of sixteen-year-old Paula Perrera in 1982 while Ross was a
student at Cornell. Perrera's body was found in Wallkill, New York, and
DNA samples taken recently from Ross link him to the girl's murder. Even
if convicted of Perrera's murder Ross will serve no time for the state
of New York as they have agreed to allow Ross to serve out his
Connecticut death sentence.
9/29/2001-Ross has pled guilty to first-degree
manslaughter in the death of Perrera while under "extreme emotional
disturbance" (yeah, no kidding). He is scheduled to be sentenced in the
case on October 22.
10/23/2001-Ross was sentenced yesterday in the murder
of Paula Perrera. He received a prison term of 8 1/3 to 25 years for the
slaying.
10/7/2004-Ross has chosen to end all appeals and an
execution date has been set for January 26, 2005. the Ivy League
graduate will be the first person executed in Connecticut since 1960.
2/19/2005-Nothing is ever easy, is it? In spite of
his wishes, Ross' execution was delayed several times. After much last-second
legal wrangling it was set for 2 a.m. on January 29 but was called off
yet again just four hours beforehand. The courts have ordered a new
round of competency evaluations and another new date has been set for
May 11. I wouldn't put any money on that, though.
Canadian Coalition to Abolish the
Death Penalty
Information provided by Michael Ross and his
supporters.
Michael Ross' CCADP webpage has been online since 1999.
EXECUTED FRIDAY THE 13th of MAY, 2005
Michael Ross: Connecticut's 1st Execution in 45 Years !
Walking With Michael - (an excerpt from Michael's
Journal - May, 2000)
"The following article, ITS TIME FOR ME TO DIE, An
Inside Look At Death Row was published in a psychiatric journal, and
gives a good overview of my legal case and personal living conditions -
a good introduction to my life here." - Michael Ross. Also gives insight
into Ross' crimes and attacks against women; and medical treatment he
has recieved in prison.
OTHER WRITINGS BY MICHAEL ROSS
Its Time For Me To Die - Inside Look At Death Row
Seeking Reconciliation From Death Row
On God's Death Row - by Michael B. Ross
WHY I CHOOSE DEATH RATHER THAN TO FIGHT FOR LIFE
A Collection of Other Writings by Michael
Read 'Two favourite prayers of mine...I hope you will enjoy them as well-
MBR
Michael Ross In The News - News articles About The Case
Notice To All Religious Communities In The United States
Michael Ross Speaks From Connecticut's Death Row
Michael is a death row prisoner and an admitted serial killer who was
the first man in years to be sentenced to death in the state of
Connecticut. Michael has become an accomplished writer during his time
on death row, and has been published in the Utne Reader, The Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, and several other publications.
NOTE / October 14, 2000
"I have been locked up for 16 years so I really don't know anything
about computers and/or webpages... I correspond with almost 100 people
now. Because I couldn't keep up with individual letters I started
writing a monthly update, photocopying it, and sending it out to
everyone. Soon my friends came up with the name "Walking With Michael,"
- which stuck ! ...Thank you very much for your time. - Sincerely,
Michael B Ross."
MICHAEL ROSS ENTERING COURTHOUSE JUNE 9, 1987
" ...DO NOT send me money, stamps, or books - there are specific prison
rules and to what I can receive and from whom I can receive these items.
Some friends do help me out with postage costs from time to time - if
you would like to do so let me know and I will give you specific
instructions on what to do. However, if you cannot afford to do so,
don't feel bad - the vast majority of people I write to do not support
me financially. You are not expected to. Until next month, Michael. "
MICHAEL B. ROSS 127404
Death Row - Northern CI
PO Box 665
Somers, CT
06071-0665 USA
Michael Ross
Born in Brooklyn, Connecticut, where his
parents ran an egg farm, Ross concentrated on animal science in high
school, moving on to Cornell University in 1977 and earning his
bachelor's degree in 1981.
After graduation, he worked briefly at an egg
farm near Columbus, Ohio, but Ross had trouble keeping his mind on the
chickens. Bicycling through LaSalle City, Illinois, on September 28,
1981, he kidnapped a 16-year-old girl and dragged her into the woods,
gagging her with a handkerchief and belt before police arrived. Charged
with unlawful restraint, Ross pled guilty the following day and paid a
$500 fine, drawing two years probation before he returned to Connecticut.
On January 5, 1982, 17-year-old Tammy Williams disappeared in Brooklyn,
while walking home from her boyfriend's house in broad daylight. Ross
was not suspected in the case, but he had reason to be fearful, all the
same. In February, he found employment at another Ohio egg farm, living
peacefully for nearly three months before his next clash with the law.
On April 26, Ross turned up at a rural home in Licking County, asking to
borrow a flashlight. His car had broken down, he said, and when Ross
came to return the light, he also asked to use the telephone. Inside the
house, he tried to choke his female benefactor - an off-duty policewoman
- but she fought him off and gave a clear description to authorities,
resulting in his swift arrest. Bailed out by his parents on May 11, Ross
was sent home to Connecticut for 60 days of psychiatric study.
On June
15, 1982, Debra Taylor was riding with her husband when they ran out of
gas near Danielson, Connecticut. They split up to find a filling station,
and Debra disappeared, her skeletal remains discovered by a jogger on
October 30. In the meantime, Michael Ross pled guilty to assault charges
in Ohio, on August 4, paying a $1,000 fine and serving four months in
jail before his release, on December 22.
In May 1983, Ross was hired by a Connecticut insurance company, his
application falsely denying any criminal convictions, and his work
record was satisfactory until early November. On November 16, 19-year-old
Robin Stravinsky was reported missing in Norwich, Connecticut, her body
found by joggers a week later, near a local hospital. Ross's employer
was pleased to note an improvement in Michael's work through December
and January, but by March 1984, the young man seemed to be entering
another unexplained slump.
On April 22 - Easter Sunday - 14-year-old neighbors Leslie Shelley and
April Brunais disappeared from Griswold, Connecticut, en route to a
friend's house. Two months later, on June 13, Wendy Baribeault vanished
in Lisbon, on a short walk to the neighborhood store. Her body, raped
and strangled, was found on June 15, and witnesses recalled seeing a
blue sub-compact car near the scene.
Police began working their way through a computer listing of 2,000 sub-compact
drivers, and they caught up with Ross on June 28. He swiftly confessed
to the Baribeault murder, then directed authorities to a rural dump site,
where the bodies of Leslie Shelley and April Brunais were recovered.
On
June 30, officers followed Ross's directions to the shallow grave of
Tammy Williams, and by July 5 he was charged in a total of six homicides.
Guilty pleas in the murders of Williams and Debra Taylor earned Ross a
sentence of 120 years imprisonment. Convicted of four other slayings on
June 26, 1987, he was sentenced to death ten days later.
Recently, Ross'
death penalty was overturned, and he later attempted suicide in his cell,
but failed.
Michael Newton - An Encyclopedia
of Modern Serial Killers - Hunting Humans
Serial killer faces penalty trial
after 15 years
Connecticut Man Admitted Killing Eight Women
April 5, 1999
NEW LONDON, Conn. (AP) -- Twelve years after receiving
six death sentences, serial killer Michael Ross is going on trial --
again.
Ross, an articulate Ivy League graduate who has been
compared to murderer Ted Bundy, has admitted killing eight women, six of
them in Connecticut.
This week, jury selection begins in the penalty phase
of a trial that began in 1987 but has followed a circuitous route
through the legal system with various appeals.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Miano has vowed to finally
bring the case to a conclusion, which would mean either the death
penalty or life in prison for Ross.
Some witnesses have died
Jury selection starts Tuesday and is expected to take
six to eight weeks. The trial itself could last two months or longer.
The case has gone on so long that some witnesses are
no longer alive, including Roger Baribeault, the father of one of the
victims. The original prosecutor, C. Robert Satti, is retired and may
now become a witness. State's Attorney Kevin Kane has had to take over
the prosecution.
Kane's job will be to resurrect a case from what has
been left behind.
One of those expected to testify is Michael W. Malchik,
a former detective with the state police major crime squad who broke the
case in June 1984.
"Did I ever expect to be trying the case again 15
years later? No," Malchik said recently. "The difficulty is
that you basically have to try the whole case over again. When it was
tried the first time, it was before the same jury. We had to put on just
a few weeks of additional evidence. The jury understood all the facts
and the guilt. Now, in a way, we have to put on a whole new trial."
Convicted 12 years ago
Ross' guilt is not in question. He confessed, and on
June 5, 1987, a jury found him guilty.
The Cornell University graduate captured his victims
as they walked along quiet, deserted roads, prosecutors said. He raped
most of them, then flipped them over onto their stomachs and strangled
them.
In 1982, 17-year-old Tammy Williams of New York City
and Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold were killed. Robyn Stavinsky,
19, of Norwich was murdered in 1983. The following year, Wendy
Baribeault, 17, of Jewett City, and two 14-year-old friends, Leslie
Shelley and April Brunais, both of Griswold, died.
Ross, who is now 39, also admits to killing two New
York women and raping a woman in North Carolina, though he has never
been prosecuted for those crimes.
When he was convicted in 1987, he received six death
sentences and two life sentences.
Court overturns death sentences
In July 1994, the state Supreme Court upheld Ross'
Connecticut convictions but overturned the death sentences. Finding that
the original trial judge excluded evidence that might have helped Ross
prove he suffered from a mental illness or defect, the court ordered a
new penalty phase.
Under the state law that was in effect at the time of
his conviction, Ross would be spared the death penalty if the jury finds
a mitigating factor, like mental illness.
Kane will try to prove aggravating factors, in this
case that the crimes were committed in a "cruel and heinous"
manner.
Case is not forgotten
But picking a jury may prove difficult because of the
case's notoriety. "I don't think people have forgotten this case in
New London County," Malchik said.
Last August, Judge Miano issued a gag order on the
attorneys in the case; both Kane and Public Defender Barry Butler
declined to comment. Family members of the victims, some of whom are
expected to testify, also declined to comment.
Trudy Gregorie, director of victims services at the
National Center for Victims of Crime in Arlington, Va., said any family
in their situation would be dreading what lies ahead.
"Every time there is a new development in the
case, it brings them back to the moment when they found that their loved
one had been murdered, even if it's 15 years later," Gregorie said.
"They can never really find any peace."
Killer dreads the trial
Ann Cole, a longtime friend of Ross, said Ross, too,
is dreading the trial. In November, he attempted suicide in his prison
cell by overdosing on medication.
"Sometimes he just wishes he would go to sleep
and not wake up," Cole said. "I'm very concerned that he could
have a complete nervous breakdown during the trial."
Michael Ross
Born in Brooklyn, CT, where his parents ran an egg
farm, Micheal Ross, "a quiet boy", concentrated on animal
science in high school, then moved on to a promising future at Cornell
University, earning his bachelor's in 1981. After graduation, he did a
brief stint at an egg farm near Columbus, Ohio -- but apparently had
trouble keeping his mind on the chickens...
September 1981: While merrily cycling through LaSalle
City, Illinois, Ross decided it'd be fun to abduct a 16-year-old for
sexual kicks. He dragged the screaming girl into the woods, and had
gagged and bound her with his hankerchief and belt when cops arrived,
just in time. Ross pled guilty, paid a $500 fine and drew two years of
probation before returning to Connecticut...
January 5th, 1982: Seventeen-year-old Tammy Williams
disappears from Brooklyn in broad daylight. Ross was not a suspect at
the time, but he had reason to be fearful, all the same. In February, he
scoots back to Ohio and finds work at yet another egg farm, and keeps
his cool for nearly three months thereafter...
April 26: Ross shows up at a rural home in Licking
County, talks his way into the house with the old "my car broke
down" story, then attacks the owner -- an off-duty policewoman. She
fought him off, he fled, and she gave cops a full description. Ross is
quickly taken into custody. Bailed out by his folks on May 11, Ross is
sent home for sixty days of psychiatric study.
June 15th: Debra Taylor was riding with her husband
when they ran out of gas near the town of Danielson. They split up to
find a filling station. Oops. Debra's skeleton was found by a jogger the
following October. In the meantime, Ross had pled guilty to the assault
charges in Ohio, paying a $1,000 fine and serving just four months in
jail. He was released on December 22nd, free yet again to get back to
work...
May 1983: Ross was hired by a Connecticut insurance
firm, his application falsely denying any criminal convictions. His work
record was fine until the early November. On November16th, one Robin
Stravansky, nineteen, disappeared from Norwich. Her battered corpse was
found by joggers a week later.
April 22nd (Easter Sunday): Fourteen-year-old neigh-
bors Leslie Shelley and April Brunias both vanished from Griswold. Two
months later, on June 13th, Wendy Baribeault turned up missing in Lisbon.
Her body, raped and strangled, was found on June 15th. Witnesses
recalled seeing a blue sub-compact car near the scene.
Cops began working their way through the computer
listing of 2,000 sub-compact drivers, and eventually zeroed in on Ross
on June 28. He swiftly confessed to the Baribeault killing, then
directed authorities to a rural dump site, where the horribly broken
bodies of Shelley and Brunias were recovered.
On June 30, officers
followed Ross's lead to the shallow grave of Tammy Williams... By July
5th, Ross is charged with a total of six homicides.
Guilty pleas in the Williams and Taylor murders earned
Ross twenty years in the big house. Finally convicted of the four other
slayings in June of 1987, "The Egg Man" was sentenced to die.
Source: Hunting Humans (Loompanics)
"Profile of Serial Killer -- Michael Ross"
About.com
Serial Killer Michael Ross - It's Time to Die: The
story of confessed serial killer Michael Ross is a tragic tale of a
young man who came from a farm life he loved, although he cannot
remember the abuse he suffered as a child. It is also a tale of this
same man who, driven by sexually violent fantasies, brutally raped and
murdered eight young girls. And finally it is a tragic tale of a
judicial system that is riddled with imperfections in its responsibility
of deciding life or death.
Michael Ross -- His Childhood Years: Michael Ross was
born on July 26, 1959 to Daniel and Pat Ross in Brooklyn, Conn.
According to court records, the two married after Pat discovered she was
pregnant. The marriage was not a happy one. Pat hated farm life and
after having four children and two abortions, she ran off to North
Carolina to be with another man. When she returned home she was
institutionalized at Norwich Hospital. The admitting doctor wrote that
Pat talked of suicide and of beating and striking her children.
A Child Abused: Ross' sister says that as a child,
Ross took the brundt of his mother's anger. It is also suspected that an
uncle of Ross's who committed suicide may have sexually molested Ross
while babysitting him. Ross says he remembers very little about his
childhood abuse, but does remember how much he loved helping his father
around the farm.
Strangling Chickens: After his uncle committed
suicide the job of killing sick and malformed chickens became eight-year-old
Michael's responsibility. He would strangle the chickens with his hands.
As Michael got older, more of the farm responsibilities became his and
by the time he was in high school his father depended a lot on Ross'
help. Michael loved farm life and met his responsibilities while also
attending high school. With a high IQ of 122, balancing school with farm
life was manageable.
Ross' College Years: In 1977, Ross entered Cornell
University and studied agricultural economics. He began dating a woman
who was in ROTC and dreamed of someday marrying her. When the woman
became pregnant and had an abortion, the relationship began to falter.
After she decided to signup for a four-year service commitment, the
relationship ended. In retrospect Ross says as the relationship became
more troubled he began to have fantasies that were sexually violent. By
his sophomore year he was stalking women.
Fantasies of Rape and Murder: In his senior year at
college, despite being engaged to another woman, Ross' fantasies were
consuming him and he committed his first rape. In that same year, he
also committed his first rape and murder by strangulation. Ross said
afterward he hated himself for what he did and tried to commit suicide,
but lacked the ability to do it and instead promised himself he would
never hurt anyone again. However, by 1984, Ross had raped and killed
eight young women, the oldest being 25.
His Victims: Dzung Ngoc Tu, 25, a Cornell University
student, killed May 12, 1981. Paula Perrera, 16, of Wallkill, N.Y.,
killed in March, 1982. Tammy Williams, 17, of Brooklyn, killed Jan. 5,
1982. Debra Smith Taylor, 23, of Griswold, killed June 15, 1982. Robin
Stavinksy, 19, of Norwich, killed November, 1983. April Brunias, 14, of
Griswold, killed April 22, 1984. Leslie Shelley, 14, of Griswold, killed
April 22, 1984. Wendy Baribeault, 17, of Griswold, killed June 13, 1984.
Finding Ross: Michael Malchik was assigned chief
investigator after the murder of Wendy Baribeault in 1984. Witnesses
provided Malchik with both the description of the car -- a blue Toyota
-- and the person who they believed kidnapped Wendy. Malchik began the
process of interviewing a list of blue Toyota owners which brought him
to Michael Ross. Malchik testified that during their initial meeting,
Ross enticed Malchik to ask more questions by dropping subtle hints that
he was their man.
Ross Confesses: By now, Ross was living in Jewett
City as an insurance salesman. His parents had divorced and sold the
farm. During the interview with Malchik, Ross told of his past two
arrests on sex offenses. It was at this point Malchik decided to bring
him to the station for questioning. At the station the two talked like
old friends: discussing family, girl friends, life in general. By the
conclusion of the interrogation Ross confessed to the kidnapping, rape,
and murder of eight young women.
The Judicial System: In 1986, Ross' defense team
moved for a dismissal on two of the murders, Leslie Shelley and April
Brunais, because they were not murdered in Connecticut and not within
the jurisdiction of the state. The state said that the two women were
murdered in Connecticut, but even if they hadn't been, the murders began
and ended in Connecticut which granted the state jurisdiction.
The Credibility Factor: But then a question of
credibility came up when the state produced a statement by Malchik
claiming that Ross gave Malchik directions to the crime scene. Malchik
claimed that somehow the directions were left out of statements, both
written and taped, two years earlier. Ross denied ever giving such
directions.
Evidence in Rhode Island: The defense produced cloth
matching a slip cover in Ross' apartment which was found in the woods in
Exeter, Rhode Island, along with a ligature used to strangle one of the
girls. The defense also produced a taped statement of Ross offering to
take the police to the crime scene, although Malchik stated he didn't
recall such an offer.
Possible Cover up: Superior Court Judge Seymour
Hendel exploded during the closed hearing, accusing the prosecutors and
police of purposely misleading the court with lies. Some of the counts
against Ross were removed, but the judge refused to reopen the
suppression hearing on Ross' confession. When sealed records were opened
two years later, Hendel retracted his statements.
Ross is Convicted: In 1987, Ross was convicted for
the murders of four of the eight women he confessed to killing. It took
the jury 86 minutes of deliberations to convict him and only four hours
to decide on his punishment -- death. But the trial itself faced a lot
of criticism in regards to the Judge who presided over it.
Profile of Serial Killer -- Michael Ross -- Part 2
The Judge Rolls His Eyes and Reads His Mail, During
Testimony: Karen Clark, who covered his case for The Day of New London
reported that Judge Ford allegedly demonstrated inappropriate behavior
toward the defense team and their witnesses. He read mail, clipped his
hails, rolled his eyes and appeared bored during defense testimony. Some
felt his lack of respect toward the defense could have influenced the
jury.
The Judge Badgers Ross' Sister: An example was Judge
Ford's behavior during the testimony of Ross' sister regarding his
childhood abuse. Ford verbally lashed out at her, firing questions at
her regarding her childhood, which were interpreted as an attempt to
discredit her testimony.
Psychiatrist's Felt Disrespected by the Judge:
Psychiatrist Borden said that Ford would whisper disapproving comments
to him during his testimony. Dr. Berlin was quoted as saying that the
doctors who were testifying to things that might have mitigated in
Michael Ross' behalf were not dealt with in a polite and respectful
fashion by the judge. Berlin later filed a complaint with the Judicial
Review Council but the council decided that there was insufficient
evidence showing misconduct on Ford's part and the complaint was
dismissed.
Did Ross Receive His Miranda Rights?: During Ross'
appeals, his defense team questioned whether Ross was read his Miranda
rights as soon as it was reasonable to assume he was in custody. Ross
and Malchik both agree that Ross confessed to the murders before he was
read his rights. Malchik testified that Ross knew he could leave at any
point prior to the confession. The custody question remains debatable.
Ross Writes About His Illness: After his conviction,
Ross spent his time in prison submitting his writings and doing
interviews about what he viewed as mistreatment by the judicial system.
He seemingly cooperated with the investigation of the murders he
committed, but in return wanted his acts to be seen as what he believes
they are: an illness that he cannot control.
A Cover Up?: Dr. Miller, who was originally set to
testify for the state, asked to be pulled from the trial because he no
longer could testify that Ross didn't in fact suffer from a mental
illness, sexual sadism, and felt that the death penalty was not
warranted. But his words were never heard by the jury because Judge Ford
would not let the doctor's letter to the state be seen.
Later, in 1994, six death sentences were thrown out
on appeal because of the Judges decision regarding Miller's letter.
Fantasies End and Reality Begins: In 1992, Ross made the decision not to
fight any more appeals. At this point he was being treated with large
doses of Depro-Lupron, a drug that inhibits testosterone and in Ross'
case, he has said, resulted in ending the fantasies of rape and murder.
Once the fantasies were gone Ross then had to deal with the reality of
his crimes and those he hurt as a result of them.
Ross Wants to Stop All Appeals: Ross has said he no
longer wants the families of his victims to be hurt, and that because of
the way the judicial system is designed, his illness will never be
brought to the forefront of discussion, which was a motivating factor to
him to stay alive these past years.
Is This a Form of Manipulation?: Some believe this is
just a way for Ross' to manipulate the system by questioning his sanity
for wanting to die thus postponing his execution.
"It's Time to Die" Ross, now 45, has waived all
appeals and has become a "volunteer" for his scheduled execution on
January 26, 2005. If he is executed he will be the first convict to be
put to death in New England in 45 years.
State v. Ross,
225 Conn. 559, 624 A.2d 886 (1993) (Direct Appeal)
Defendant who had been convicted in the Superior
Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Ford, J., and who had appealed
from judgments of conviction of capital felony and from imposition of
death sentence after those convictions filed motion for enlargement of
class of similar cases that Supreme Court will consider in determining
whether his death sentence is justified in light of proportionality
requirement. The Supreme Court held that class would be expanded to add
any case in which capital felony conviction had been obtained after
October l, 1973, and conviction was followed by imposition of sentence
other than death. Motion granted in part. Berdon, J., filed dissenting
opinion.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Michael Ross, who has
appealed from the judgments of conviction of capital felony and from the
imposition of the death sentence after those convictions, has filed a
motion for enlargement of the class of similar cases that we will
consider in determining whether his death sentence is justified in light
of the proportionality requirement of General Statutes § 53a-46b(b)(3)
[FN1]
Exercising its rule-making authority, this court has
determined to limit the class of similar cases, in accordance with the
requirements of the statute, to cases in which the conviction of a
capital felony after trial was followed by a hearing to consider the
imposition of the death penalty. Practice Book § 4066A(b). [FN2] In the
particular circumstances of this defendant's appeal, we have allowed the
class of similar cases to be enlarged to include the defendant's two
murder convictions for which consecutive life sentences were imposed as
a result of his entering pleas of nolo contendere after the original
charges of capital felony were reduced. FN1. General Statutes §
53a-46b(b)(3) provides: "REVIEW OF DEATH SENTENCE .... "(b) The supreme
court shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that ...
(3) the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed
in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and
the character and record of the defendant."
FN2. Practice Book § 4066A(b) provides: "[briefs]--review
of death sentences pursuant to general statutes § 53a-46b .... "(b) For
the purpose of reviewing the issue of disproportionality pursuant to
Gen.Stat., § 53a-46b(b)(3)
, the briefs of the parties shall contain appendices setting forth the
circumstances of the crimes that are claimed to be similar to that of
which the defendant has been convicted and the characters and records of
the defendants involved therein so far as these are ascertainable from
the transcripts of those trials and hearings on the imposition of the
death penalty or may be judicially noticed.
Only those capital felony
cases that have been prosecuted in this state after October 1, 1973, and
in which hearings on the imposition of the death penalty have taken
place, whether or not the death penalty has been imposed, shall be
deemed eligible for consideration as 'similar cases,' unless the court,
on application of a party claiming that the resulting pool of eligible
cases is inadequate for disproportionality review, shall modify this
limitation in a particular case.
Any such application shall identify the
additional case or cases claimed to be similar and set forth, in
addition to the circumstances of the crime and the character and record
of the defendant involved, the provisions of the applicable statutes
pertaining to the imposition of the death penalty with citations of
pertinent decisions interpreting such provisions. "Any such application
shall be filed within thirty days after the delivery date of the
transcript ordered by the appellant, or, if no transcript is required or
the transcript has been received by the appellant prior to the filing of
the appeal, such application shall be filed within thirty days after
filing the appeal."
The defendant now asks that the class of similar
cases be further amended in one of two ways. His more expansive proposal
is to enlarge the class of similar cases to include any case prosecuted
after October 1, 1973, in which the state could have charged the
defendant with a capital felony and that resulted in a conviction of not
less than manslaughter in the first degree. General Statutes §§ 53a-55.
His more limited proposal is to enlarge the class of similar cases to
include all capital felony cases prosecuted after October 1, 1973, that
resulted in a conviction of not less than manslaughter in the first
degree following a plea or a trial.
We unanimously decline to accept the defendant's more
expansive proposal. That proposal does not differ materially from the
proposals that we rejected when, in exercising our rule-making authority,
we defined the class of similar cases to include "[o]nly those capital
felony cases that have been prosecuted in this state after October 1,
1973, and in which hearings on the imposition of the death penalty have
taken place...." Practice Book § 4066A(b).
With regard to the defendant's more limited proposal,
we unanimously agree, in the circumstances of this case, to amend our
existing definition of the class of similar cases to add any case in
which a capital felony conviction has been obtained and the conviction
was followed not by a hearing on the imposition of the death penalty but
by an imposition of a sentence other than death, either by virtue of a
plea agreement or by virtue of the fact that the state did not seek the
death penalty. If this predicate has been met, and if the record
contains sufficient information to enable a relevant comparison to be
undertaken, then we will consider such cases as part of the class of
similar cases.
We decline, however, to include in the relevant class
any cases in which the prosecution has failed to establish the
commission of a capital felony. In the first appeal from the imposition
of a death sentence, it is inevitable that proportionality review will
have to be undertaken against the background of a limited number of
similar cases. That inevitability warrants intensive scrutiny of the
cases that are similar but does not justify distortion of the principle
of similarity. In the special circumstances of this case, we have
granted the defendant's preliminary motions for permission to file an
out-of-time application to expand the universe of cases for
proportionality review, and have permitted him to file a supporting
memorandum exceeding the normal page limit. We are unpersuaded that oral
argument would provide any further enlightenment in deciding the merits
of his motion.
Under the express provisions of General Statutes §§
53a-35a, [FN4] only conviction of a capital felony subjects a defendant
to the possible imposition of a death sentence. Only conviction of a
capital felony occasions a hearing into mitigating and aggravating
factors to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. Only
conviction of a capital felony will put on the record the circumstances
that are relevant to the proportionality review mandated by §
53a-46b(b)(3).
FN4. General Statutes § 53a-35a provides in relevant
part: "imprisonment for any felony committed on or after july 1, 1981:
definite sentences; terms authorized. For any felony committed on or
after July 1, 1981, the sentence of imprisonment shall be a definite
sentence and the term shall be fixed by the court as follows: (1) For a
capital felony, a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of
release unless a sentence of death is imposed in accordance with section
53a-46a...." General Statutes § 53a-46a provides in relevant part:
"hearing on imposition of death penalty. aggravating and mitigating
factors. (a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for a
capital felony only if a hearing is held in accordance with the
provisions of this section. "(b) For the purpose of determining the
sentence to be imposed when a defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty
to a capital felony, the judge or judges who presided at the trial or
before whom the guilty plea was entered shall conduct a separate hearing
to determine the existence of any mitigating factor concerning the
defendant's character, background and history, or the nature and
circumstances of the crime, including any mitigating factor set forth in
subsection (g), and any aggravating factor set forth in subsection (h)."
In view of this unambiguous statutory pattern, the
propriety of a death sentence imposed for conviction of a capital felony
cannot appropriately be compared with sentences imposed as the result of
convictions of less serious crimes. As a matter of law, sentences
imposed as the result of such other convictions have not been "imposed
in similar cases," as § 53a-46b(b)(3) requires. The motion is granted in
part to enlarge the class of similar cases for the purposes of this
appeal to include all convictions of a capital felony after October 1,
1973, whether such convictions resulted from a trial or from a plea and
whether or not such convictions were followed by the imposition of the
death penalty.
In this opinion PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, NORCOTT
and DUPONT, JJ., concurred.
BERDON, Associate Justice, dissenting.
The defendant, Michael Ross, moves to expand the universe of cases
because the present rules and case law are inadequate for
proportionality review. The defendant lists only fifteen cases that can
now be considered (including four cases in which he was a defendant). I
would grant the defendant's request for oral argument on the motion.
Certainly, we should allow both the defendant and the state to
supplement their written argument and respond to our questions on a
matter as important as determining whether the death penalty should be
imposed.
First, I must put the defendant's request in its
proper perspective, as the New Jersey Supreme Court did in State v.
Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 524 A.2d 188 (1987). "Proportionality review has
a function entirely unique among the review proceedings in a capital
proceeding. Proportionality review, in the context of a capital
sentencing scheme, is not appellate review to ensure that the
aggravating factors outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all the
mitigating factors ... or to determine if the death sentence is
disproportionate to the crime in violation of the ban against cruel and
unusual punishment. That death is not disproportionate in the sense of
being a cruel and unusual punishment is presumed by the nature of the
review.... Rather, the purpose of review here is of a different sort....
It purports to inquire instead whether the penalty is nonetheless
unacceptable in a particular case because [it is] disproportionate to
the punishment imposed on others convicted of the same crime.
"The heightened concern in a capital case for whether
a sentence is disproportionate in this sense is twofold and derives from
the finality of the result and the risk that the proceedings are
vulnerable to the influence of impermissible considerations. First, the
imposition of death by public authority is ... profoundly different from
all other penalties.... Because of this fundamental distinction between
the death penalty and all other punishments, there is a corresponding
difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death
is the appropriate punishment in a specific case. Proportionality review
assists us in assuring that we have designed procedures which are
appropriate to the decision between life and death and ... [that] we
have followed those procedures.
"Proportionality review further acts as a check
against the random and arbitrary imposition of the death penalty by an
aberrant jury.... [G]iven the emotions generated by capital crimes, it
may well be that juries, trial judges, and appellate courts considering
sentences of death [may be] affected by impermissible considerations....
Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other suspect
characteristic cannot be tolerated. As the Florida Supreme Court stated:
[Proportionality review] by this Court guarantees that the reasons
present in one case will reach a similar result to that reached under
similar circumstances in another case. No longer will one man die and
another man live on the basis of race, or a woman live and a man die on
the basis of sex. If a defendant is sentenced to die, this Court can
review that case in light of the other decisions and determine whether
or not the punishment is too great. Thus, the discretion charged in
Furman v. Georgia, [408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972),]
can be controlled and channeled until the sentencing process becomes a
matter of reasoned judgment rather than an exercise in discretion at all....
"Proportionality review therefore is a means through
which to monitor the imposition of death sentences and thereby to
prevent any impermissible discrimination in imposing the death penalty."
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 106 N.J. at
326-27, 524 A.2d 188.
Why this court is so restrictive in expanding the
universe of cases to be considered is beyond my comprehension. Allowing
a case to be included in the universe under our rules of practice;
Practice Book § 4066A(b); does not mean that the case is automatically
considered a "similar" case under proportionality review mandated by
General Statutes § 53a-46b. Certainly, to grant the defendant's
alternative request disadvantages no one--the state, the defendant or
the court--except that it may mean more work for all of us in attempting
to sort out those cases that are "similar" from those that are not. I
would prefer to rely on the good faith efforts of the parties to include
only cases that are similar. When so much is at stake--life or death--we
should have all the relevant information before us so we can make a just
decision.
The majority of this court today does grant partial
relief for the defendant by our sua sponte modification of the request,
but we do not have any information as to whether that relief will
increase the universe of cases and if so, the extent of the increase. On
the basis of the briefs before me today, and without the benefit of oral
argument, I would grant the defendant's alternative proposal, which he
estimates would increase the universe by approximately twenty-five
additional cases. That proposal would "include all capital felony cases
prosecuted in Connecticut after October 1, 1973, which likewise resulted
in a conviction of at least Manslaughter in the First Degree (General
Statutes §§ 53a-55 following a plea or trial." Accordingly, I dissent.
State v. Ross,
230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994) (Direct Appeal)
Defendant was convicted of six counts of capital
felony and sentenced to death following jury trial in Superior Court,
Judicial District of New London, Ford, J., following grant in part by
Hendel, J., of motion to dismiss, and defendant appealed. The Supreme
Court, Peters, C.J., held that: (1) defendant was properly convicted of
murder in the course of kidnapping though killings occurred in Rhode
Island, where there was evidence that defendant kidnapped victims in
Connecticut with intent to kill them; (2) defendant was not in custody
for Miranda purposes even after officer voiced belief that defendant had
killed one of the victims; (3) even if missing witness instruction was
improper, it was harmless; (4) trial court should have instructed jury
expressly in accordance with language of statute requiring two witnesses
or equivalent evidence in capital felony cases, but defendant was not
harmed by form in which trial court responded to request for instruction;
(5) death penalty statute is constitutional under Federal and State
Constitutions; (6) evidence was sufficient to establish aggravating
circumstance that offenses were especially heinous, cruel and depraved;
(7) such aggravating factor is a single unitary factor requiring
intentional infliction of extreme psychological or physical pain or
torture above and beyond that necessarily accompanying the underlying
killing; (8) judge may exclude mitigating evidence only on the basis of
lack of relevancy and not on basis of lack of reliability; and (9) trial
court improperly excluded evidence in mitigation. Convictions affirmed,
penalty set aside, and remanded for new sentencing hearing.
Berdon, J., filed opinion dissenting in part.
These consolidated criminal appeals from the imposition of the death
penalty upon the defendant, Michael B. Ross, raise numerous issues
concerning the validity of his capital felony convictions and the
validity of the procedures that resulted in death sentences for each of
these convictions. [FN1] After a trial to determine guilt, a jury
convicted the defendant of six counts of capital felony [FN2] in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-54b. [FN3] At a separate sentencing
hearing pursuantto General Statutes § 53a-46a, [FN4] the same jury
considered further evidence and found an aggravating factor and no
mitigating factor with respect to each count. As a result, the trial
court rendered a judgment imposing the death sentence on the defendant
on each count. The defendant has appealed to this court in accordance
with General Statutes §§ 51-199 and 53a-46b. [FN5]
We affirm the
defendant's conviction of all counts of capital felony. Because of
improprieties in the conduct of the sentencing hearing, however, we
reverse the judgments imposing the death penalty and remand for new
sentencing hearings on all counts. FN1. We reject the dissenting
justice's suggestion that plenary consideration of the defendant's
appeal should have been postponed to some indefinite time in the future.
No other death penalty case is presently ready to be heard, without
disqualifications, en banc or even by five justices of this court. There
is no prospect that any such appeal will be ready in this calendar year.
It is entirely unclear when any such appeal will be ready.
Concern for
fairness in the administration of justice requires the prompt reversal
of a trial court judgment that improperly imposes the death penalty. It
is anomalous for the dissenting justice to take the position that the
death penalty is unconstitutionally cruel on its face, in part because
of the inevitable delay in its implementation, and simultaneously to
urge indefinite extension of the uncertainty and anxiety of a criminal
defendant who is presently improperly being held on death row.
* * *
The jury could reasonably have found the following
facts. On June 13, 1984, the defendant accosted seventeen year old Wendy
B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon. After a short
conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall, forcing her to go
with him into a wooded area that led to an open field. There he sexually
assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach, and then
strangled her.
On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, the defendant accosted
nineteen year old Robyn S. on the grounds of Uncas on Thames State
Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn S. into a wooded area
and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then sexually assaulted her
and, after ordering her to turn over on her stomach, strangled her.
Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.
On Easter Sunday, 1984, the defendant picked up
fourteen year old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were
hitchhiking to Jewett City on Route 138. Once the girls had entered his
car, he drove them easterly on Route 165 and, over their protests, past
their intended destination.
When April B. tried to force the defendant
to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he disarmed her and
continued to transport the girls against their will, through eastern
Connecticut, to Beach Pond in Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked his
car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s feet
and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he assaulted
her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her.
Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually
assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and
drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a
culvert.
At his trial, the defendant did not deny having
committed the sexual assaults, the kidnappings and the murders described
above. His defense was insanity, a defense that the jury rejected by
finding him guilty as charged. Additional facts will be discussed as
they become relevant to the issues before us.
The defendant's appeal raises a multitude of issues,
which we will address in three main parts. First, we will consider the
validity of the defendant's conviction of six counts of capital felony.
Second, we will consider the facial constitutionality, under the federal
and state constitutions, of imposing the death penalty upon a person who
has been found to have committed, in an especially heinous, cruel or
depraved manner; § 53a-46a(h)(4); a capital felony under subsection (5)
or subsection (7) of § 53a-54b. Third, we will consider the validity,
pursuant to § 53a-46a, of the defendant's sentencing hearing. In light
of our remand for a new sentencing hearing because of substantial
noncompliance with the statutory requirements of § 53a-46a, we need not
review the defendant's death sentences pursuant to § 53a-46b.
* * *
In summary, the defendant's convictions are affirmed
in their entirety. The defendant kidnapped and killed four young girls,
and sexually assaulted three of them, in a manner that was especially
cruel, heinous or depraved. Imposition of the death penalty requires
more, however. Even a defendant who has offered no persuasive legal
excuse for his felonious conduct is entitled to have a sentencing jury
consider extenuating circumstances that may explain his behavior and
mitigate his moral culpability and may therefore counsel against the
ultimate sanction of death. Because evidentiary rulings by the trial
court impaired the defendant's ability to prove the existence of such
mitigating factors, a new sentencing hearing must be held.
State v. Ross,
269 Conn. 213, 849 A.2d 648 (2004) (Direct Appeal)
Background: Defendant was convicted in the Superior
Court, Judicial District of New London, Ford and Miano, JJ., of multiple
counts of capital felony and sentenced to death. Defendant appealed, and
the Supreme Court, 230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318, affirmed convictions
but vacated death sentences and remanded for new penalty phase. On
remand, the defendant was against sentenced to death, and he appealed.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Sullivan, C.J., held
that:
(1) defendant was not deprived of fair and impartial jury;
(2) consolidation of multiple convictions for capital felony at
sentencing phase did not prejudice defendant;
(3) defendant was not entitled to competency examination;
(4) admission at sentencing hearing of State psychiatric expert's
general opinion presented during guilt phase of trial did not violate
right of confrontation;
(5) Catholic bishop's proposed testimony regarding Catholic church's
position on capital punishment and on concept of mercy was not relevant
at sentencing;
(6) defendant waived psychiatrist-patient privilege when he raised issue
of mental impairment and disclosed videotaped interviews with
psychiatrist to State;
(7) State's failure to timely disclose evidence involving out-of-state
crimes for which defendant was investigated did not violate Brady;
(8) evidence of mental impairment was not so compelling such that jury
could not have reasonably rejected it;
(9) murders were committed in especially cruel, heinous, or depraved
manner;
(10) defendant was not deprived of right to unanimous verdict;
(11) jury was not misled by instructions regarding sentences of death or
life without possibility of release; and
(12) death sentences were not disproportionate to sentences imposed in
similar cases. Affirmed.
Norcott, J., filed dissenting opinion.
SULLIVAN, C.J.
The defendant, Michael B. Ross, was charged in three cases [FN1] with
eight counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes §
53a-54b. The trial court dismissed two counts for lack of territorial
jurisdiction and, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of
four counts of capital felony in violation of § 53a-54b (5) and two
counts of capital felony in violation of § 53a-54b (6). [FN2] State v.
Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 188, 194-95, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 1165, 115 S.Ct. 1133, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995) (Ross II). [FN3]
After a separate penalty phase hearing pursuant to General Statutes
(Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46a, [FN4] he was sentenced to death. The defendant
appealed from the judgments to this court. We affirmed the defendant's
convictions, but determined that certain evidentiary rulings by the
trial court in the penalty phase had impaired the defendant's ability to
establish a mitigating factor and, accordingly, we reversed the
judgments imposing the death penalty. Id., at 286,. On remand, a second
penalty phase hearing was held before a jury, which found an aggravating
factor for each capital felony conviction and no mitigating factor. In
accordance with the jury's findings, the court, Miano, J., imposed a
death sentence on each count. On appeal to this court pursuant to
General Statutes § 51-199, [FN6] the defendant raises numerous
challenges to the sentences of death. We affirm the judgments imposing
the death penalty on each count of capital felony.
FN1. The cases were consolidated for trial. See State
v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 225, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
1165, 115 S.Ct. 1133, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995).
FN2. General Statutes § 53a-54b provides in relevant
part: "A person is guilty of a capital felony who is convicted of any of
the following ... (5) murder by a kidnapper of a kidnapped person during
the course of the kidnapping or before such person is able to return or
be returned to safety; (6) murder committed in the course of the
commission of sexual assault in the first degree ...."
The criminal conduct in this case occurred in 1983
and 1984. Section 53a-54b has been amended several times since 1984 for
purposes not relevant to this appeal. For convenience, we cite the
current version of the statute although we take note of the fact that
prior to the enactment of No. 01-151, § 3, of the 2001 Public Acts, the
provision of the statute concerning murder committed in the course of
the commission of sexual assault in the first degree had been designated
subdivision (7) rather than subdivision (6).
FN3. State v. Ross, 225 Conn. 559, 561, 624 A.2d 886
(1993) was referred to as Ross I in State v. Cobb, 234 Conn. 735, 663
A.2d 948 (1995) . We therefore refer in this opinion to State v. Ross,
supra, 230 Conn. 183, 646 A.2d 1318, as Ross II, and to State v. Ross,
251 Conn. 579, 742 A.2d 312 (1999), as Ross III.
FN4. Because the defendant committed the crimes that
were the basis of his convictions in 1983 and 1984; Ross II, supra, 230
Conn. at 191- 92, 646 A.2d 1318; the applicable version of § 53a-46a
would normally have been the revision of 1983. In Ross II, supra, at
280-83, 646 A.2d 1318, however, this court concluded that Public Acts
1985, No. 85- 366, § 1(d), first codified at General Statutes (Rev. to
1987) § 53a-46a (d), applied retroactively to this case. In 1993, the
legislature amended § 53a-46a for purposes not relevant to this appeal.
See Public Acts 1993, No. 93-306, § 12, currently codified at § 53a-46a
(i)(7). In 1995, the legislature amended the statute to include
substantive provisions that are not retroactively applicable to this
case. See Public Acts 1995, No. 95-19, § 1, currently codified in part
at § 53a-46a (g) . For convenience, uniformity and clarity, all
references and citations in this opinion to § 53a-46a are to that
statute as revised to 1987.
General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46a provides in
relevant part: "(a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death
for a capital felony only if a hearing is held in accordance with the
provisions of this section. "(b) For the purpose of determining the
sentence to be imposed when a defendant is convicted of ... a capital
felony, the judge ... who presided at the trial ... shall conduct a
separate hearing to determine the existence of any mitigating factor
concerning the defendant's character, background and history, or the
nature and circumstances of the crime, including any mitigating factor
set forth in subsection (g), and any aggravating factor set forth in
subsection (h).... Such hearing shall be conducted (1) before the jury
which determined the defendant's guilt, or (2) before a jury impaneled
for the purpose of such hearing if (A) the defendant was convicted upon
a plea of guilty; (B) the defendant was convicted after a trial before
three judges as provided in subsection (b) of section 53a-45; or (C) if
the jury which determined the defendant's guilt has been discharged by
the court for good cause or, (3) before the court, on motion of the
defendant and with the approval of the court and the consent of the
state.
"(c) In such hearing the court shall disclose to the
defendant or his counsel all material contained in any presentence
report which may have been prepared. No presentence information withheld
from the defendant shall be considered in determining the existence of
any mitigating or aggravating factor. Any information relevant to any
mitigating factor may be presented by either the state or the defendant,
regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of
evidence in trials of criminal matters, but the admissibility of
information relevant to any of the aggravating factors set forth in
subsection (h) shall be governed by the rules governing the admission of
evidence in such trials. The state and the defendant shall be permitted
to rebut any information received at the hearing and shall be given fair
opportunity to present argument as to the adequacy of the information to
establish the existence of any mitigating or aggravating factor. The
burden of establishing any of the factors set forth in subsection (h)
shall be on the state. The burden of establishing any mitigating factor
shall be on the defendant.
"(d) In determining whether a mitigating factor
exists concerning the defendant's character, background or history, or
the nature and circumstances of the crime, pursuant to subsection (b) of
this section, the jury ... shall first determine whether a particular
factor concerning the defendant's character, background or history, or
the nature and circumstances of the crime, has been established by the
evidence, and shall determine further whether that factor is mitigating
in nature, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.
Mitigating factors are such as do not constitute a defense or excuse for
the capital felony of which the defendant has been convicted, but which,
in fairness and mercy, may be considered as tending either to extenuate
or reduce the degree of his culpability or blame for the offense or to
otherwise constitute a basis for a sentence less than death.
"(e) The jury ... shall return a special verdict
setting forth its findings as to the existence of any aggravating or
mitigating factor.
"(f) If the jury ... finds that one or more of the
factors set forth in subsection (h) exist and that no mitigating factor
exists, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the jury ...
finds that none of the factors set forth in subsection (h) exists or
that one or more mitigating factors exist, the court shall impose a
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
"(g) The court shall not impose the sentence of death
on the defendant if the jury ... finds by a special verdict, as provided
in subsection (e), that any mitigating factor exists. The mitigating
factors to be considered concerning the defendant shall include, but are
not limited to, the following: That at the time of the offense (1) he
was under the age of eighteen or (2) his mental capacity was
significantly impaired or his ability to conform his conduct to the
requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in
either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution or (3) he was
under unusual and substantial duress, although not such duress as to
constitute a defense to prosecution or (4) he was criminally liable
under sections 53a-8, 53a-9 and 53a-10 for the offense, which was
committed by another, but his participation in such offense was
relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to
prosecution or (5) he could not reasonably have foreseen that his
conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which he was
convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to
another person. "(h) If no mitigating factor is present, the court shall
impose the sentence of death on the defendant if the jury ... finds by a
special verdict as provided in subsection (e) that ... (4) the defendant
committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner
...."
FN5. General Statutes § 51-199(b) provides in
relevant part: "The following matters shall be taken directly to the
Supreme Court ... (3) an appeal in any criminal action involving a
conviction for a capital felony ... (4) review of a sentence of death
pursuant to section 53a-46b ...."
FN6. General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-46b
provides: "(a) Any sentence of death imposed in accordance with the
provisions of section 53a-46a shall be reviewed by the supreme court
pursuant to its rules. In addition to its authority to correct errors at
trial, the supreme court shall either affirm the sentence of death or
vacate said sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence in
accordance with subdivision (1) of section 53a-35a.
"(b) The supreme court shall affirm the sentence of
death unless it determines that: (1) The sentence was the product of
passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (2) the evidence fails
to support the finding of an aggravating circumstance specified in
subsection (h) of section 53a-46a; or (3) the sentence is excessive or
disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering
both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the
defendant.
"(c) The sentence review shall be in addition to
direct appeal and if taken, the review and appeal shall be consolidated
for consideration. The court shall then render its decision on the legal
errors claimed and the validity of the sentence." All references in this
opinion to § 53a-46b are to that statute as revised to 1987, a technical
change in the statute having been effected by the enactment of Public
Acts 1985, No. 85-366, § 2, to reflect a change to § 53a-46a by § 1 of
the same public act. See footnote 4 of this opinion.
As set forth in Ross II, supra, 230 Conn. at 191-92,
646 A.2d 1318, the jury at the guilt phase trial reasonably could have
found the following facts. "On June 13, 1984, the defendant accosted
seventeen year old Wendy B. as she was walking along Route 12 in Lisbon.
After a short conversation, he pulled Wendy B. over a stone wall,
forcing her to go with him into a wooded area that led to an open field.
There he sexually assaulted her, forced her to turn over on her stomach,
and then strangled her. "On Thanksgiving Day, 1983, the defendant
accosted nineteen year old Robyn S. on the grounds of Uncas on Thames
State Hospital in Norwich. He forcefully pulled Robyn S. into a wooded
area and ordered her to remove her clothing. He then sexually assaulted
her and, after ordering her to turn over on her stomach, strangled her.
Before leaving, he covered her body with leaves.
"On Easter Sunday, 1984, the defendant picked up
fourteen year old April B. and fourteen year old Leslie S., who were
hitchhiking to Jewett City on Route 138. Once the girls had entered his
car, he drove them easterly on Route 165 and, over their protests, past
their intended destination. When April B. tried to force the defendant
to stop the car by threatening him with a knife, he disarmed her and
continued to transport the girls against their will, through eastern
Connecticut, to Beach Pond in Rhode Island. At Beach Pond, he parked his
car and bound both girls hand and foot. He then untied April B.'s feet
and forced her to walk a short distance from his car, where he assaulted
her sexually, turned her over on her stomach and strangled her.
Returning to the car, the defendant killed Leslie S. without sexually
assaulting her. He then placed the bodies of both girls in his car and
drove back to Preston, Connecticut, where he deposited their bodies in a
culvert." Id.
At the second penalty phase hearing, the state sought to
prove as an aggravating factor that the defendant committed all of the
offenses in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner within the
meaning of § 53a-46a (h)(4). The defendant sought to prove two statutory
and fourteen nonstatutory mitigating factors. [FN7] The jury found an
aggravating factor and no mitigating factor for each count. Thereafter,
the court imposed six sentences of death. This appeal followed.
* * *
The jury reasonably could have found the following
facts. With respect to the murder of Wendy B., the defendant told police
that she had screamed and fought after he grabbed her and that he
threatened to hurt her if she did not stop. She complied with his demand
and pleaded with him not to hurt her. He then led her into the woods,
raped her and told her to turn over onto her stomach. She continued to
struggle as he strangled her to death.
Malchik testified that the defendant had told him
that his hands had cramped as he strangled both Wendy B. and Robyn S.
and that he had had to reapply his grip. [FN65] Both victims were "moving
and writhing" as he strangled them and the defendant stated that he had
found Robyn S. to be "strong." The defendant also had told police that
Robyn S. had been "a hundred percent unwilling" to engage in sex but
that he had been able to force her because he was "bigger and stronger"
and had intimidated her.
FN65. In a videotaped interview with a journalist
after the first penalty phase, which was introduced into evidence at the
second penalty phase, the defendant denied having told the police that
his fingers had cramped during the strangulations or that he had had to
reapply his grip.
With respect to April B. and Leslie S., the defendant
stated to the police that he had picked them up while they were
hitchhiking. They asked him to drive them to a certain gas station, but
when they arrived there, the defendant refused to stop the car. At that
point, April B. pulled a steak knife out of her pocket and threatened to
stab the defendant if he did not stop.
The defendant stated that he
yelled at her and nearly drove off the road, at which point she "panicked"
and gave him the knife. He then drove to a remote area, parked the car
and told both victims to get in the backseat. He tied up Leslie S. with
an elastic belt she had been wearing. He then took April B. out of the
car. During the incident, April B. was "mouthy" and struggled with the
defendant, but Leslie S. urged her "to do exactly everything he wanted [her]
to do." He forced April B. to remove her jeans and cut the jeans into
strips with the steak knife. He tied her hands and feet with the strips
and then returned to Leslie S. and tied her feet. The jury heard
evidence that he then placed Leslie S. in the trunk of the car. At that
point, he raped April B. and then strangled her to death.
The jury heard
evidence that the defendant did not tell Leslie S. that he had killed
April B. It also saw a videotape in which the defendant told a
journalist that he put April B.'s body in the front seat of the car
after killing her. He then took Leslie S. out of the car, placed her on
the ground and strangled her.
The jury also heard evidence that the defendant's
intention was to degrade, to humiliate and to subjugate his victims when
he forced them to disrobe and sexually assaulted them and that he
derived satisfaction from the act of strangulation. Grayson reported
that the defendant had told him, "If I shot them in the head or stabbed
them it would've been out of character with the power and degradation....
Also, shooting them would be too quick."
The jury also heard evidence
that the defendant had acknowledged that all of his victims had suffered
and that he had "sadistically brutalized and murdered" them. We conclude
that the jury reasonably could have determined that the cumulative
effect of this evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt the
existence of an aggravating factor as defined by § 53a-46a (h)(4) for
each of the six capital felony counts with which the defendant was
charged. As we noted in Ross II, supra, 230 Conn. at 262-63, 646 A.2d
1318, "[t]he jury reasonably could have found, for each of the
defendant's four victims in the circumstances of these cases, that their
manual strangulation by the defendant was an especially cruel way of
inflicting death."
The jury also could have inferred that the defendant
chose that method of killing for that very reason. [FN66] The jury also
reasonably could have found that, "[i]n the cases of Wendy B. and Robyn
S., the defendant's cruelty was exacerbated when their strangulation was
prolonged by the cramping of the defendant's hands, which caused him to
stop before resuming the strangulation." Id., at 263, 646 A.2d 1318.
Although the jury heard evidence at the second penalty phase that the
defendant had denied stopping mid-killing and then reapplying his grip,
the jury was not required to credit that evidence.
FN66. The inference that the defendant derived
satisfaction from this method of killing would not be inconsistent with
the jury's determination that the defendant did not suffer from a
significant mental impairment. The fact that the defendant enjoyed the
suffering of his victims does not necessarily mean that his ability to
refrain from inflicting that suffering was significantly impaired.
Moreover, from the evidence presented at the second
penalty phase hearing, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the
defendant sexually assaulted all of the victims, including Leslie S. As
we stated in Ross II, "the jury reasonably could have inferred that the
victims' terror would have been increased by the defendant's sexual
assaults upon them." Id. If the jury determined that the defendant had
not sexually assaulted Leslie S., it "reasonably could have found that
she would have been terrified by sitting in the defendant's car, bound
hand and foot, and coming to understand that her best friend April B.,
was being sexually abused and then killed." Id.
Although there was
evidence that the defendant had not told Leslie S. that he had killed
April B., the jury reasonably could have found that, as she waited,
bound hand and foot, in the trunk of the defendant's car and listened to
April B.'s struggles and protests, Leslie S. knew the fate of her friend
without having been informed of it by the defendant.
Finally, as we did in Ross II, we reject the
defendant's claims that his conduct was not "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved," as a matter of law, "because his conduct did not go beyond
that which is necessarily encompassed by the capital felonies of which
he was convicted." Id. On the basis of the evidence presented at the
second penalty phase, "the jury reasonably could have found an
aggravating factor for each of these capital felony counts [with respect
to Wendy B. and Robyn S.] because of the proof of an added element from
the other [capital] felony count.... With respect to April B. [and
Leslie S., their] sexual assault by the defendant was likewise an
aggravating factor above and beyond the kidnapping and the murder that
were elements in the capital felony as charged." (Citation omitted.) Id.,
at 264, 646 A.2d 1318. Even if the jury determined that the defendant
had not sexually assaulted Leslie S., it reasonably could have found
that "an aggravating factor of special cruelty was the exacerbated
psychological anguish inflicted upon her by her own bondage and her fear
for the fate of her best friend." Id. Accordingly, we reject this claim.
* * *
"The jury returned a special verdict finding that the
state had proved the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt for
both of the murders. Id., at 681-82, 741 A.2d 913. The jury further
found that the defendant had proved the existence of an unspecified
mitigating factor or factors. Id., at 682, 741 A.2d 913. The trial court
imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
release. Id." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 429-30, 824 A.2d 778 the
defendant "was found guilty of multiple murder capital felony in
violation of § 53a-54b (8) [now (7) ] for the deaths of his former wife
and his son. Following the penalty phase hearing before a three judge
panel, the defendant was sentenced to death. The panel found that the
state had proved its aggravating factor, that the murders were committed
in an especially cruel manner. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) §
53a-46a (h)(4). This finding was based on evidence demonstrating that
the defendant had engaged in a prolonged and violent assault on his
former wife, during which he beat her severely and stabbed her multiple
times, ignoring her anguished cries that he was hurting her and begging
for help. The defendant then turned on his son, chased him down as he
attempted to escape and repeatedly stabbed him.
"The defendant claimed the two statutory mitigating
factors of significant impairment of his mental capacity and significant
impairment of his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of
the law as well as twenty-five nonstatutory mitigating factors. [FN100]
... [T]he panel found that the defendant had proved the factual
underpinnings of four nonstatutory mitigating factors. They were: (1)
that the defendant was neglected, abandoned and the product of an
abusive family unit during his childhood; (2) that the defendant had
been a model prisoner at all times since his incarceration for the
murders; (3) that he dropped out of school at age sixteen; and (4) that
he was a good employee and a productive worker. The panel further found,
however, that none of the nonstatutory mitigating factors, alone or in
combination, constituted a mitigating factor considering all of the
facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the panel sentenced
the defendant to death." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 428, 824 A.2d
778 .
FN100. "The defendant claimed as nonstatutory
mitigating factors that: (1) at the time of the offense, his mental
capacity was impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a statutory
mitigating factor; (2) at the time of the offense, his ability to
conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired, but not
so impaired as to constitute a statutory mitigating factor; (3) at the
time of the offense, he was suffering from an extreme emotional
disturbance; (4) at the time of the offense, his mental capacity was
significantly impaired, and he suffered from an extreme emotional
disturbance that constituted a defense to the prosecution, which,
although not presented in the guilt phase, the court could consider as a
nonstatutory mitigating factor; (5) he was under the influence of
alcohol and prescription medication at the time of the offense; (6) his
mother gave him up to live at an orphanage as well as other homes
because he was in the way and she could not or would not properly care
for him; (7) his mother herself was the product of a broken home, was
abandoned by her own parents, lived in an orphanage and was ill-prepared
to raise him properly; (8) upon his return from the orphanage it was
readily apparent that the defendant had suffered severe and traumatic
abuse at the orphanage; (9) he was significantly and traumatically
affected by his abandonment by his parents; (10) he was raised in a
pathological, alcoholic and abusive family unit; (11) his mother was an
alcoholic and she lacked the necessary mothering skills to raise her son
properly; (12) his father almost never worked or supported his family
and drank excessively on a daily basis; (13) the defendant was subjected
to verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of both of his
parents; (14) he was the product of a broken home that lacked the
necessary love, affection, support and nurturing that is critical to
proper social and childhood development; (15) his formal education ended
before completion of the eighth grade; (16) despite his low level of
education, he has a long history of steady employment and has led a
productive life; (17) as a teenager, he worked and contributed to the
household; (18) he worked hard to support his family for nineteen years;
(19) he has been a model prisoner; (20) mercy; (21) considerations of
fairness and mercy constitute a basis for a sentence of life without the
possibility of release; (22) there exists a factor concerning the facts
and circumstances of the case that has not been specifically mentioned
in this list that the court can consider in fairness and mercy as
constituting a basis for imposing on him a sentence of life imprisonment
with no possibility of release rather than sentencing him to death; (23)
there exists a factor in his character, history and/or background that
has not been specifically mentioned in this list that the court can
consider in fairness and mercy as constituting a basis for a sentence of
life without the possibility of release; (24) any of the previously
listed factors taken either individually or in combination with any
other factor, although not an excuse for the offense, in fairness or
mercy provides a reason for a sentence of life without the possibility
of release; and (25) death is not the appropriate sentence for the
defendant." Breton III, supra, 264 Conn. at 335-36 n. 7, 824 A.2d 778.
* * *
"On the basis of this analysis, of our scrupulous
examination of all of the material presented to us regarding the
imposition of the death penalty in the present case, and of our careful
review of the material presented to us regarding the imposition of the
sentences in the other [twenty-three] similar cases, [FN102] we conclude
that the death sentence is not 'excessive or disproportionate to the
penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of
the crime and the character and record of the defendant.' General
Statutes § 53a-46b (b)(3).
There is nothing freakish, arbitrary, wanton
or aberrational about the sentence in this case. There is no pattern or
trend evident in similar cases with respect to which this sentence is
inconsistent. This case is not an outlier. The various sentencers'
evaluations of similar aggravants and claimed mitigants in the other
similar cases is reasonably consistent with the [panel's] evaluation of
the aggravants and claimed mitigants in this case.
The death sentence in
this case is reasonably consistent with the sentences of death imposed
in the [three cases] in which that sentence was imposed, considering the
aggravants found and the mitigants claimed. The death sentence in this
case is reasonably consistent with the sentences of life imprisonment in
the [twenty] similar cases in which that sentence was imposed,
considering the aggravants found and the mitigants claimed; there is
nothing freakish, aberrational or arbitrary in [the jury's] having
imposed the death penalty in this case and [the sentencers'] having
declined to do so in the other [twenty] cases. The sentence in this case
is reasonably consistent with the sentences imposed in the pool of
similar cases." State v. Webb, supra, 238 Conn. at 550-51, 680 A.2d 147.
FN102. The pool of similar cases is comprised of
twenty-one docketed cases. As we have noted, however, Diaz-Marrero and
Ortiz each count as two cases for purposes of proportionality review.
The judgments are affirmed.
In this opinion VERTEFEUILLE, LAVERY, FOTI and
DRANGINIS, Js. concurred.
NORCOTT, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I maintain my position that the death
penalty has no place in the jurisprudence of the state of Connecticut.
Ross ex rel. Dunham v. Lantz,
--- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 1120272 (2nd Cir. May 12, 2005) (Stay)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Michael B. ROSS, by his next friend, Donna Dunham, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Theresa LANTZ, Commissioner of Corrections, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Michael B. Ross is scheduled to be executed by the State of Connecticut
at 2:01 a.m. on Friday, May 13, 2005, having declined to pursue further
any available state or federal avenues of collateral review of his
convictions or death sentences. Mr. Ross's sister, Donna Dunham,
purporting to be his "next friend," seeks a stay of Mr. Ross's execution.
We summarize briefly the procedural history of this matter.
Michael Ross was sentenced to death in 1987 after
being convicted of six counts of capital felony. State v. Ross, 237 Conn.
332, 334, 677 A.2d 433 (1996). Subsequent legal proceedings included the
overturning of all six separate death sentences along with a remand for
a new sentencing hearing; an attempt by Ross, rejected by the trial
court, to stipulate to the death penalty by agreement with the state;
and the re-imposition of the death penalty after a second penalty
hearing. State v. Ross, 272 Conn. 577, 579-80, 863 A.2d 654 (2005).
After these new death sentences were affirmed by the Supreme Court of
Connecticut in 2004, State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 392, 849 A.2d 648
(2004), Ross notified the state Superior Court in September 2004 that he
would not pursue further appeals and requested that an execution date be
set. Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and
Voluntariness at 2.
In January of this year, in two separate lawsuits,
two persons attempted to assert "next friend" status, which would permit
them to bring either a section 1983 action or a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus on Ross's behalf despite his oft-repeated statements of
unwillingness to do so himself. The section 1983 action, brought by
Ross's father, Dan Ross, was denied by the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (Droney, J.) after a January 7, 2005
hearing. Ross v. Rell, No. Civ. A 3:04 cv 2186C, 2005 WL 61494, (D.Conn.
Jan.10, 2005). That decision was not appealed to us.
Subsequently, in response to a similar petition filed
in the same court by Gerard A. Smyth, Chief of the Connecticut Office of
the Public Defender, the district court (Chatigny, J.) granted a stay of
execution. See Ross v. Lantz, No. 05 CV 116(RNC), 2005 WL 162479, at *4,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 908, at *13 (D.Conn. Jan.25, 2005). We declined to
vacate the stay, but we dismissed the appeal to us in order to permit
the district court to establish a factual record upon which Smyth's
standing as "next friend" could be reviewed. Ross v. Lantz, 396 F.3d
512, 515 (2d Cir.2005). The Supreme Court, however, in a 5-4 vote,
promptly vacated the stay. Lantz v. Ross, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 1117,
160 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2005).
Dan Ross then sought to bring an action under 28
U.S.C. § 1983 against various Connecticut officials asserting a
constitutional right not to be deprived by the state of his association
with his son and alleging that the state's prison conditions had made
his son incompetent to waive further proceedings. The court (Chatigny,
J.) again issued a restraining order prohibiting Michael Ross's
execution. Ross v. Rell, No. 3:05-CV-130(PCD), 2005 WL 181883, at *2,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1004, at *4 (D.Conn. Jan.26, 2005). This time we
vacated the order. Ross v. Rell, 398 F.3d 203, 205 (2d. Although we
noted that certain additional material submitted to us raised "troubling
questions," we thought ourselves compelled to conclude: "[T]he
implications of the Supreme Court's one-sentence order [vacating the
stay] in Lantz v. Ross leave little room to argue to this Court in this
appeal that Michael Ross is incompetent for these purposes." Id. Shortly
before the execution was to be carried out on January 29, 2005, it was
postponed at the request of Ross's attorney, and with the agreement of
Ross and the state. Ross's attorney, who had previously been assisting
Ross in arguing that he was competent and entitled to waive further
appeals, was apparently concerned that a potential conflict of interest
might prevent him from continuing to advocate that position effectively.
Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and
Voluntariness at 3-4; State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422,
17433 (May 9, 2005), slip op. at 9-10. Soon thereafter, Ross filed a
motion requesting that the Superior Court reopen its competency hearing.
On February 10, 2005, to assuage the concerns of Ross's attorney about a
potential conflict of interest, the Superior Court appointed Thomas J.
Groark, Jr., Esq., as special counsel to investigate and present
evidence that Ross was in fact not competent to waive his appeals. Conn.
Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re: Competency and
Voluntariness at 4. After after six additional days of adversary
evidentiary hearings, the Superior Court concluded in a Memorandum of
Decision issued April 22, 2005, that Ross's decision not to seek further
appeals "is both competent and voluntary." Id. at 21.
The special counsel appealed that ruling, and on May
9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court's
determination. State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422, 17433 (May
9, 2005). We observe that the special counsel conceded on appeal that "death
row syndrome," which had earlier been urged in both the District Court
and this Court as a basis for questioning Ross's competence, was not
part of his case to the Superior Court. May 5, 2005 Transcript at 23.
The special counsel has not appealed or sought collateral relief from
the state Supreme Court's affirmance. While the special counsel was
pursuing his appeal, the petitioner in this case, Donna Dunham, filed
her petition in Connecticut Superior Court. Dunham also seeks to proceed
as "next friend" of Ross. May 6, 2005 Dunham Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus at 5. The Superior Court denied that petition and the Supreme
Court dismissed her related writ of error on May 11, 2005. Ross v. Lantz,
No. SC 17432 (May 11, 2005) (order). On May 12, the district court
denied Dunham's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging the final decision of the state Supreme Court. Ms. Dunham
now seeks a stay of execution to allow her to appeal.
"It is well established ... that before a federal
court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to
invoke the jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite
standing to sue." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154, 110 S.Ct.
1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). For the federal courts to have
jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, then, Donna
Dunham, purporting to be, in legal parlance, petitioner Ross's "next
friend," must establish that she is legally that, and therefore that she
has standing to bring the petition on his behalf.
According to the Supreme Court, speaking in Whitmore,
Decisions applying the habeas corpus statute have adhered to at least
two firmly rooted prerequisites for "next friend" standing. First, a "next
friend" must provide an adequate explanation--such as inaccessibility,
mental incompetence, or other disability--why the real party in interest
cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the "next
friend" must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on
whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested
that a "next friend" must have some significant relationship with the
real party in interest. Id. at 163-64 (citation omitted). "The burden is
on the 'next friend' clearly to establish the propriety of his status
and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court." Id. at 164.
Having carefully reviewed the extensive proceedings
that have taken place in Connecticut state courts relating to Michael
Ross's "competence," the "voluntary" nature of his waiver of further
proceedings, and related issues since our decision in Rell, we are
firmly convinced that Ms. Dunham has no room to argue that Michael Ross
is incompetent or otherwise disabled for these purposes. The
"prerequisite for 'next friend' standing is not satisfied where an
evidentiary hearing shows that the defendant has given a knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to proceed, and his
access to court is otherwise unimpeded." Id. at 165. Ms. Dunham, like
Dan Ross before her, has not carried her burden by "provid[ing] an
adequate explanation--such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or
other disability--why [Ross] cannot appear on his own behalf to
prosecute the action."
The Superior Court concluded after the most recent
state competency hearings that "Michael Ross'[s] decision to waive his
right to further postconviction relief is knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary." Conn. Sup. Court Apr. 22, 2005 Mem. of Decision re:
Competency and Voluntariness at 21. The district court in the proceeding
now before us, deciding whether Ms. Dunham can represent Michael Ross as
his next friend, reviewed the evidence and, combined with its own
observations of Michael Ross made in the January 7, 2005, district court
proceedings, concluded that Michael Ross: has made a knowing and
voluntary waiver of his right to bring further post-conviction legal
action, one which was uncoerced and made in full understanding of the
significance and consequences of that decision. Dunham v. Lantz, Civ.
No. 3:05 CV 758(CFD), slip op. at 7 (D.Conn, May 12, 2005). This and the
state court factual findings foreclose the possibility of next friend
standing for Dunham in this case. [FN*]
The record demonstrates that in this Court and
elsewhere, the rights of Michael Ross have been afforded extensive due
process protections irrespective of whether he has sought or even
affirmatively resisted such efforts. And, as the state continues to
concede, Ross can, at any moment prior to his execution, reverse course
and invoke his right to seek further proceedings to overturn his
conviction or death sentence.
We conclude that Ms. Dunham has not met her burden to
establish that she has standing to act in these proceedings as Mr.
Ross's next friend. We note in that regard that although she could not
in fact seek to bring this habeas petition until the Supreme Court of
Connecticut ruled, she and her extraordinarily capable counsel have
known for months that such a proceeding was likely, have had access to
the transcripts of the April hearings before Judge Clifford for some
days, and therefore had a sufficient opportunity to prepare for
submitting the necessary evidence if it existed.
Because we think that Ms. Dunham has not demonstrated
that the issue with respect to her standing as next friend is "debatable
among jurists of reason," Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4,
103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted), the motion for a stay is DENIED.
FN* We do not imply any judgment on our part with
respect to the correctness of the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court
of Connecticut addressing "voluntariness," "competence" and related
issues. See State v. Ross, ____ Conn. ----, Nos. SC 17422, 17433 (May 9,
2005).