Gerald Holland - MS

[JJS811]

Posted on Fri, Sep. 18, 2009

Miss. death-row inmate loses resentencing claim
By JACK ELLIOTT JR.

A federal appeals court panel has ruled that a Mississippi death row inmate does not have the right to present evidence at resentencing that is inconsistent with the verdict of the guilt-phase jury.
Gerald James Holland contended his constitutional rights were violated when, at his re-sentencing, he was not allowed to rebut prosecutors' claim that he killed a teenager while raping her.

Holland's lawyers argued that state law unfairly allows a jury unfamiliar with the details of a crime to decide a death sentence.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday ruled against Holland.

In Mississippi, capital murder cases require two jury trials - one to decide guilt or innocence, and another to determine a life sentence or death.

Several states, including Louisiana and Texas, which are part of the 5th Circuit, have similar systems.

Holland's attorney, Stephen Eberhardt of Tinley Park, Ill., told The Associated Press on Friday that he would not comment because he had not seen the decision. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Holland, now 71, is the state's oldest death row inmate. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1987 in the slaying of 15-year-old Krystal King. Prosecutors said King was raped, beaten and stabbed.

The Mississippi Supreme Court in 1991 upheld Holland's conviction but threw out the death sentence on a technicality. Holland was re-sentenced to death in 1993 by a Harrison County jury. The Mississippi court upheld the second death sentence in 1997.

The Mississippi Supreme Court in 2004 rejected Holland's claim. U.S. District Judge William H. Barbour Jr. sided with the state court in 2006.

Mississippi jurors in death penalty cases weigh aggravating factors against mitigating factors to choose between life without parole and the death penalty.

Holland's attorneys argued that at his resentencing when prosecutors reintroduced details about the crime as aggravating facts, it was only fair that Holland be allowed to rebut those facts.

In court briefs, Hood argued the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that you could not attack the finding of guilt in the sentencing phase.

The 5th Circuit panel, in a decision written by Judge Edward Charles Prado, said Holland did not "have the right to present evidence at resentencing that is inconsistent with the verdict of the guilt-phase jury."

Prado said Holland's defense was not prejudiced by his being stopped from contesting the rape at resentencing.

Prado said Holland was allowed to call all the witnesses he wanted to testify to explain the crime or the circumstances of the crime and his family life. Prado said the one thing Holland was not allowed to dispute were the elements of the crime.

http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/1612657.html