IMHO, it is his refusal to think about the consequences of his actions and the real differences between a sentence of life in prison versus a sentence of death that makes his behavior stupid. Despite the best efforts of the judge to spell out the distinction between the two. As far as I can see the judge was saying that it is not as black and white as “life in a box” and “death.” Life in prison means more appeal, parole, and chances of a reduce sentence. A death sentence means less of these opportunites.
His stupidity was in not allowing the judge (who has a better understanding of the legal system) to explain these differences to him so that he could make a better choice about his behavior. Instead he decided, without (I’m assuming) any real understanding of the complexities of the legal system, that he knew better than the judge about what his options were and acted accordingly.
I’d have to know more about the details of the case against him, but assuming it was an air-tight case, then I see nothing “dumb” about the courtroom behavior. No matter what, he’s going to die in prison. May as well go down defiant. I’d say the guy’s taking what little satisfaction he can from an irredemable situation. Actually, I gotta admire him to a small degree. He’s going down with all flags flying. True, it’s the courage of despair, but at least he’s not apathetic.
IAAL, and it looks to me like the judge was trying to avoid a reversal based on his failure to warn the defendant of the possible consequences of his behavior. He probably did more than he needed to, but cases are reversed for really strange reasons sometimes.
I have a freind, Jake, who was a federal public defender for several years. He had a client who was about to be sentenced, and he was already in custody for something else. He took off his clothes in the holding cell of the courthouse and refused to put them on. The deputies got his shirt on him, but not his pants, so the judge ordered them to bring him up to the courtroom pantless. The defendant expressed his dissatisfaction with Jake and with the justice system in general by pissing on Jake during his sentencing.
Defendants who are unhappy will find a way to express it, some more interestingly than others.
I think part of the problem is that our death penalty system is set up such that the defendant’s behavior made a certain kind of sense.
Suppose he is convicted, but the judge rules that his behavior would lead to undue prejudice against him by the jury. So the judge excludes the defendant from the courtroom during the sentencing phase, and he gets the death penalty. Bang! Instant reversal - he was not allowed to assist in his own defense.
Or the judge allows him to remain in the courtroom. He acts out, cursing and screaming, and the jury gives him the death penalty. Bang! Instant reversal. Anyone who behaves so when his life is on the line is obviously not mentally competent to assist in his own defense, and should never have been given the death penalty.
No matter what happens, there will always be some judge (the name Rose Bird springs to mind) who will latch onto anything at all to overturn a death sentence.
Although I would rather doubt the charming individual in question is thinking that clearly. I cannot say I am surprised to find a murderer has an anger management problem.
Thanks for the cite of the appeal document. I will read it over and see what kind of arguments get cited in trying to convince the courts that this particular murderer should continue to be wasting perfectly good oxygen.
Well, he did appeal on the grounds that “the trial court erred in holding the capital sentencing hearing in defendant’s absence”. The appeal was rejected:
and the defendant’s behavior may be seen as “stupid” in the context of this, from the court opinion: