DA argues against accused killer’s motions regarding death penalty
Responding to motions made by the attorney for an accused killer challenging the state’s death penalty procedures, Fayette County prosecutors argued that the man is not entitled to special jury instructions nor are his rights being violated by the standard instructions that will be read to jurors who hear the case.
Henry Clay Crawford, 56, stands accused of homicide in the fatal stabbing of Lisa Tupta in her home in North Union Township in January. Crawford’s attorney, Public Defender Jeffrey Whiteko, filed several motions in April, some of which the commonwealth has already addressed. If he is convicted of first-degree murder, prosecutors have filed notice that they will ask jurors to sentence Crawford to death.
In the filing last week, Assistant District Attorney Meghann Mikluscak responded to Whiteko’s assertion that social science data confirm that jurors who are not specifically instructed that a term of life imprisonment means no chance of parole will lean toward the death penalty over the lesser sentence.
Mikluscak wrote that Crawford is not entitled by law to have the jury instructed as to what Pennsylvania’s definition of life imprisonment is. According to Mikluscak, Crawford would only be entitled to special jury instructions if the prosecution introduced the argument that he poses a risk of future dangerousness, which the commonwealth has not done.
Whiteko also argued previously that Crawford’s constitutional due process rights would be violated in selecting a panel of “death qualified” jurors, or individuals who, in the course of jury selection, indicate that they do not object to capital sentences. Typically, when a death penalty case is being tried, jurors are questioned individually, and only those jurors who say they could follow the law and impose a death sentence are selected to hear the case.
“Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly stated that ‘death qualified’ juries are not unconstitutional nor are they conviction prone,” Mikluscak countered.
Citing prior case law, Mikluscak argued that there is a presumption that jurors can and will follow the court’s instructions and that the purpose of selecting a jury in a process that jointly involves the commonwealth and the defense ensures that a fair and impartial jury is chosen.
In May, Senior Assistant District Attorney Michelle Kelley addressed another of the motions challenging the death penalty, contending lethal injection does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, she countered Whiteko’s claim that the commonwealth had thus far provided insufficient evidence to support the notice of aggravating factors necessary to seek the death penalty.
To secure a death sentence, prosecutors must show that there are aggravating factors present. In this case, prosecutors alleged that those factors include Crawford’s prior violations of protection-from-abuse orders, an alleged killing committed during the course of an alleged felony, use of torture in commission of the alleged killing and a significant history of felony convictions
A judge will address Whiteko’s motions at a date yet to be determined, after Crawford has been evaluated for mental competency and the report has been submitted to the court.