« "No more pits of despair. Offenders are still humans." | Main | Texas proves, yet again, where there is a will to get executions drugs, there seems to be a way »

July 8, 2018

Notable federal capital defendant claims his killing age (20) should make him ineligible for death penalty

The name Donald Fell is likely familiar to capital punishment followers: Fell was convicted and sentenced to death in federal court for the November 2000 abduction and slaying of Teresca King,but his initial conviction and sentence were thrown out after revelations of juror misconduct.  Prior to his retrial, his attorney's have brought a series of challenges to the federal death penalty.   This local article, headlined "Fell seeks to avoid death penalty based on age," reports on their latest filings:

Lawyers representing Donald Fell, who was charged in the 2000 homicide of a North Clarendon woman, are asking a federal judge to rule out the death penalty because Fell was 20 years old at the time of the alleged murder. A second trial is pending for Fell, 38, for the carjacking and kidnapping of 53-year-old Terry King.

Fell is accused of kidnapping King from the Rutland Shopping Plaza. Police said Fell and his friend, Robert Lee, took King to New York where she was bludgeoned to death. Fell was convicted of the crimes with which he’s now charged in 2005 and he was sentenced to the death penalty in 2006. However, Fell’s attorneys found evidence of juror misconduct and Fell’s conviction was overturned in 2014....

The motion by Fell’s attorneys, filed on Tuesday, referred to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2005 that found capital punishment is unconstitutional if the person convicted committed the crime before he or she was 18.  The motion, filed by San Francisco attorney Michael Burt, a member of Fell’s defense team, said the question of whether Fell was too young at the time he allegedly killed King had not been heard.

“Mr. Fell has had no opportunity to show that Roper‘s age-18 cutoff does not account for the current medical and scientific consensus that brain development is not completed by age 18, and that Mr. Fell’s particular development at age 20 is insufficient to justify capital punishment.  Simply put, his evidence will show that at the time of the offenses, Mr. Fell did not function as an adult with sufficient moral culpability for capital punishment,” the motion said.

Dr. James Garbarino also filed a brief discussing his findings working with young people dealing with severe violence.  He said doctors who had previously examined Fell found psychological problems but the science of brain development was not advanced enough at the time to recognize Fell’s problem was “developmental brain immaturity” from developmental delays.  “In the case of Donald Fell, his social history indicates he is just such an individual — growing up with much adversity, including psychological adversity such as experiences of parental rejection, and physical maltreatment, including physical traumas which may have resulted in insults to his brain,” Garbarino wrote....

The second half of the motion argued that society opposed the execution of young criminals. “Executing individuals barely old enough to vote or drink, unable to rent a car, unable to serve in Congress, and still in the throes of cognitive development — based upon now-disregarded views of culpability — undermines the Supreme Court’s commitment to dignity, and the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption,” the motion said.

Fell, through his attorneys, requested a hearing on the issue, followed by an order precluding the government from seeking the death penalty. Prosecutors have not yet responded to the 550-plus page motion.  Many of the exhibits in the motion were papers on the adolescent brain or court rulings on defendants who committed crimes while young, although only Kentucky was cited as banning the death penalty for someone younger than 21 rather than someone younger than 18.

Another motion, more than 1,100 pages long, was filed Tuesday seeking to stop prosecutors from having a mental health professional testify during the sentencing if Fell is convicted.

Prior related posts:

July 8, 2018 at 05:29 PM | Permalink


This again highlights the stupidity of the Supreme Court deciding that minors can't get the DP.

Posted by: William Jockusch | Jul 8, 2018 6:59:57 PM

550+ page motion, 1100+ page motion. Seems to me the strategy is baffle 'em with BS and drown 'em in paperwork.

Posted by: Not Telling | Jul 8, 2018 11:47:18 PM

I just looked at it on PACER. The actual motion was around 60 pages. The newspaper report is misleading because it included all of the exhibits and attachments in the page count.

Posted by: Anon AFPD | Jul 9, 2018 1:41:36 AM

Silly lawyer profession. The real age of adulthood is 14. And, adolescents are superior to adults in every way, including in morality. They have a lower violent crime rate than adults. Any immaturity is from lack of experience and of responsibility. This infantilization is imposed by far left lawyers seeking to prevent superior individuals from competing with their union clients. The impetuosity that Justices refer to is actually speed of decision making. The lawyer profession is grasping at quackery to justify is pro-criminal excuse defense.

Posted by: David Behar | Jul 9, 2018 9:15:15 AM

Anon AFPD. May judges not read exhibits without committing a reversible error?

Posted by: David Behar | Jul 9, 2018 9:16:55 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB