DETAILED NARRATIVE SUMMARIES FOR DEATH ELIGIBLE

his ability to exercise normal behavior control was substantially yards to the west of the holding tanks with a dirt road actually leading to the tanks.

96 KB – 830 Pages

PAGE – 1 ============
U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This volume is for public COltFIDENTIAL material has been deleted. 139364 This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions slated In this document are those 01 the aulhors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of .Justlce. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted malerl,}t has been Administrative of the “COurts to the National Criminal Jusllce Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the copyright owner. DETAILED NARRATIVE SUMMARIES FOR DEATH ELIGIBLE CASES NOV 10 tm 1eney ProportioD.Hty Rnlew Project D .. Ld C. B.ldu8. Speci.1 Maner

PAGE – 2 ============
Ł Ł DEATH PENALTY REVIEW PROJ’ECT NARRATIVE SUMMARIES The following are detailed summaries of the facts and procedural history of all cases which were eligible for the death penalty in New Jersey since the re-enactment of capital punishment on August 5, 1982. Death eligibility was determined according to standards set by the Special Master for the Proportionality Review project. These criteria are set forth in the Final Report of the Special t”laster for the New Jersey Proportionality Review Proj ect to the New Jersey Supreme Court. These summaries are based primarily upon the facts of each case as found in appellate opinions where available or as found in pre-sentence reports Ł Where an appellate opinion is used to recount the facts, information in the prese’l’ltence report relating to the defendant’s background is included at the end of the summary. The normal convention of single space and indent for quoting opinions was not used for ease of reading since the excerpts were quite lengthy. Other sources of information utilized were comments from trial counsel, and other public documents such as appellate briefs and -judgments of conviction. Trial were reviewed for some cases but not generally. Each preceded by a brief thumbnail sketch of the facts and·’ the outcome, as well as relevant aggravating and mitigatihg factors as found by juries, or by the. special Master where cases-were:not tried·to a penalty phase Ł

PAGE – 4 ============
Ł Ł Ł PENALTY TRIAL/DEATH Table of Cases Name Bey, Marko I Bey, Marko II Biegenwald, Richard I Clausell, James Coyle, Brian Davis, Steven DiFrisco, Anthony Dixon, Phillip Erazo, Samuel Gerald, Walter Harvey, Nathaniel Hightower, Jacinto Hunt, James Jackson, Kevin Johnson, Walter Kise, Raymond Koedatich, James I Lodato, Benjamin Long, Ronald Marshall, Robert Martini, John McDougald, Anthony Moore, Marie Moore, Samuel Oglesby, Wal1;er Pennington, Frank Perry, Arthur Pitts, Darryl Purnell, Braynard Ramseur, Thomas Rose, Teddy Savage, Roy Schiavo, Dominick Williams, James Zola, James Page No. 1 7 12 18 24 30 36 41 46 51 58 61 67 73 76 82 88 96 101 107 117 124 132 143 146 150 154 157 166 170 180 184 191 195 201

PAGE – 5 ============
e· Ł Ł PENALTY TRIAL/DEATH of Cases Bey, Marko I Bey, Marko II Biegenwald, Richard I Clausell, James Coyle, Brian Davis, Steven DiFrisco, Anthony Dixon, Phillip Erazo, Samuel Gerald, Walter Harvey, Nathaniel Hightower, Jacinto Hunt, James Jackson, Kevin Johnson, Walter Kise, Raymond Koedatich, James I Lodato, Benjamin Long, Ronald Marshall, Robert Martini, John McDougald, Anthony Moore, Marie Moore, Samuel Oglesby, Walt;.er Pennington, Frank Perry, Arthur Pitts, Darryl Purnell, Braynard Ramseur, Thomas ” Rose, Teddy Savage, Roy Schiavo, Dominick Williams, James Zola, James Page No. 1 7 12 18 24 30 36 41 46 51 58 61 67 73 76 82 88 96 101 107 117 124 132 143 146 150 154 157 166 170 180 184 191 195 201

PAGE – 6 ============
Ł Ł Ł Ł bU Ł STATE V. BEY (1) II ŁŁŁŁ Ł ŁŁ ”’1”’1-j I. 7 I· D, 17 years old, met V, a female acquaintance, on the boardwalk. D and V share a marijuana joint, have sexual intercourse. V refuses Dis further advances, D beats V with a 2×4, causing several fractures to her face and skull. D then strangles V. Jury verdict: murder 12/13/83. Penalty trial. Two aggravating factors: 4c, 4g. ·Three mitigating factors: Sa, Sc, Sh. Death. The following factual swnmaries have been partially excerpted from State v. Bey (1), 112 45 (1988). “Early in the morning of April 2, 1983, Patrolman Kenneth Whritenour o:E the Neptune Police Department responded to a radio call directing him to a vacant lot adjacent to the boardwalk in Ocean Grove. Whritenour discovered the nude and battered body of ‘the. (v’). a young, female subsequently identified as A bra was knotted loosely around the victim’s neck. “Investigators from the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office called to the scene found the victim’s clothes balled up in the doorway of one of four nearby, abandoned bathhouses, along with various cosmetic items strewn about. A single trail of footprints ran from the bathhouse to the victim’s body, and from the body towards Spray Avenue. A dented “two-by-four” piece of wood with blood on the end was reco.vered as well. U 112!!:ir. at 52. “Slightly more than a month later, on May 6, 1983, at approximately 5:15 p.m., officers from the Asbury Park and Neptune Police Departments arrested the defendant at his mother’s home in

PAGE – 8 ============
Ł ———home all night. I woke up the next morning and I heard that someone got killed. I didn’t know who it was at that time. I didn’t know that it was her until I saw it in the paper.’ “The statement also reveals Bey claimed to be ‘high’ during the encounter and that his recollection of some details was flawed. He V said he had become angry when. all declined to have sex a second time and began to hit him, and that he did not know ‘the reason why [he) did it * * *.” 112 N.J. at 54. v’s body was found face up. Violent blows with a blunt object had “extensively damaged” her face and had driven her head three inches into the sand. Her left eye had been destroyed. A bra bad been knotted around her neck, and her neck had marks on it. Several abrasions of between one and a half ‘<";0 two inches across Ł marred her chest.. She had been beaten so badly that identification had to be done through dental charts. Ł An autopsy was performed. The physician who performed the .. . autopsy (W1) found multiple fractures to V· s facial bones and skull. V' s jaw was broken in four or five placeso The root of her nose was completely flattened. Several teeth were loose and a couple were missing. Superficial abrasions on the shoulder and forearm indicated feeble attempts at defense. Heavier abrasions on her chest indicated more beating, which resulted in a small laceration of the heart and a massive laceration of the Ł Abrasions around the neck were consistent with strangulation. W1 testified that the multiple injuries to the face, head and PAGE - 9 ============ abdomen were the main cause of death. W2, a state expert witness who reviewed W1's work, said the head wounds and the liver injury were the main cause of death. The lab recovered blood and semen from V's jacket, found in the bathhouse. The blood was of the V's type. The seminal fluid was consistent with that of the Marko Bey. A rectal swab showed evidence of semen and blood, but they could not be typed. A vaginal swab showed positive for sperm, but the blood type was not tha t of Bey. W3 , a forensic chemist, testified that she did not believe Bey had "contributed to the spermatozoa that was found in that area." V's mother had last seen her daughter alive at about 12:30 a.m. on April 2. She been sitting on a concrete embankment Ł outside her house. Her mother had not noticed her missing until Ł 1:45 a.m. She waited up until 4 When she awoke and found V was still missing, she began making phone calls to try to find her. Bey, 18 at the time of the aI",;",est, was 17 at the time of the homicide. He was unemployed, had held unskilled in the past and had dropped out of school in junior high, although he did receive the GED. On July 5, 1983, the Monmouth County Grana Jury returned indictment No. 904-7-83, charging Bey with purposeful and knowing murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, and theft. On July 11, 1983, the State filed notice of aggravating factors (4)(c) and (4)(g). D failed, before trial, to file notice 4 Ł PAGE - 10 ============ of mitigating factors. However, raised during the penalty phase, were (5)(a), emotional disturbance; (5)(c), age of Bey (17); (5)(d) intoxication; and (5)(h), any other factor. Trial before a jury lasted from December 8 to December 13, 1983. The qefense presented no witnesses and Bey did not testify. The defense consisted of arguing that Bey had not intended to kill v. The jury found Bey guilty on all counts. The penalty phase lasted from December 14 through 15. The State relied substantially on the evidence adduced at the guilt phase and introduced photographs and slides to establish torture or aggravated battery. Bey testified and presented three witnesses. Bey's uncle, CH, testified of the poverty Bey grew up in, of his mother's alcohol problems, and of Bey's alienation from his father, who left his family when Bey was two and had little contact with them over the years. (Bey stayed with his father for Ł about a year as a teenager.) He said Bey had been a good student until junior high, when he apparently lost interest in school and dropped out. He later got a GEn. Bey testified that he had started smoking pot and drinking when he was 14 or 15. He claimed he had a problem with drugs and drink. He said he had held odd jobs since leaving school. He' apologized for the murder. Bey has prior convictions for robbery, aggravated assault and criminal restraint. Bey's mother also testified about the poverty of the family. An investigator testified that Bey's father had shown no interest in his son's present plight Ł 5 PAGE - 11 ============ The jury found the following: the state had proved aggravating Ł factors (4)(c), outrageous and wanton, and (4)(g), contemporaneous felony, beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense had established the presence of mitigating factors (5) (a), extreme mental or emotional disturbance, (5)(c), his youth, and (5)(h), other factors. The jury determined that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the aggravating factc)rs. The judge imposed the dfeath sentence. Counts 2 through 4 merged into count 1. On appeal, the New Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court ruled that the 1986 amendment to the death penalty act, which excludes juveniles tried as adults from execution, applied retroactively so as to exclude Bey from punishment. Ł Continuing police interrogation into the murder after the D stated he did not want to talk about it, violated Bey's fifth amendment safeguard against compelled testimony. A written statement that immediately follows an unconstitutionally compelled oral statement is inadmissible if it directly flows from the tainted statement. Police may not cleanse such a written statement of its testimony taint by giving a new Miranda warning. The court also ruled that Bey was entitled to a new trial because the trial judge refused to poll the jury concerning prejudicial mid-trial publicity, and a realistic possibility existed that prejudicial information had reached the jurors. State v.Bey I, 112 N.J. 45 (1988). 6 Ł 96 KB – 830 Pages