Judge should rule on issue of competency
Mark D. Edwards Jr. stands accused of a grisly multiple killing. Last April 14, Edwards allegedly entered the home of Larry and Joanne Bobish. After killing the couple, their pregnant daughter and slashing the throat of their son, he allegedly set the house on fire. For these crimes, District Attorney Nancy Vernon believes 20-year-old Edwards should pay the ultimate price – his own life.
His own attorney, Diana Zerega, claims her client isn’t smart enough and will test the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that forbids state executions of the mentally retarded.
Last week Judge Ralph Warman agreed that Fayette County should pay the bill to have Edwards tested. If his IQ falls below 70, a number the courts believe shows incompetence, then a decision will need to be made as to who decides if this remains a capital case – the judge or Edwards’ jury.
Pennsylvania has yet to enact a law to figure this out. Attorney General Mike Fisher favors allowing these type of cases to precede through the guilt and innocence phase of a trial, and then present evidence of incompetence to a jury to decide whether to sentence a defendant to life in prison or death. Another school of thought, presented in a bill sponsored by Sen. Edward W. Helfrick, R-Northumberland, calls for a judge to decide if a defendant is mentally retarded before trial.
The penalty phase of capital cases allows for the defense to present what are called mitigating factors and for prosecutors to present what are called aggravating factors. A jury must weigh the credibility of each in making a decision.
Since juries, especially in such heinous cases as the Bobish slaying, can be easily swayed by emotions and calls for vengeance, the decision of mental competence is best left to the trial judge.
In the Edwards’ case, a psychologist will test and study him and should be able to provide expert testimony that an impartial, emotionally-detached judge, rather than a jury, could better weigh.
It’s doubtful that legislators will enact a law to guide the court system before Edwards’ evaluation is completed and his case is ready for trial. Judges often rule on a number of pre-trial issues that determine what can and cannot be presented at trial. Sometimes those rulings deal with competency. Mental retardation should be a matter settled before a jury is seated.