« BJS releases small accounting with "Preliminary Data Release - Jails (2023)" | Main | Rounding up some early accounts of how Hunter Biden will be sentenced »
June 11, 2024
Missouri completes execution of double murderer who proclaimed his innocence
As detaile in this AP article, a "man convicted of killing his former lover and her husband in what prosecutors described as a fit of rage was executed Tuesday evening in Missouri." Here is more:
David Hosier, 69, was pronounced dead at 6:11 p.m. following a single-dose injection of the sedative pentobarbital at the state prison in Bonne Terre. Hosier was convicted of the 2009 killings of Angela and Rodney Gilpin in the state capital of Jefferson City.
Hosier turned his head a couple of times and breathed hard twice as the drug was administered. All movement stopped within seconds, even as his spiritual adviser seated next to him, the Rev. Jeff Hood, continued to pray.
Investigators said Hosier had a romantic relationship with Angela Gilpin and was angry with her for breaking it off and reconciling with her husband. Hosier maintained until the end that he was innocent and shouldn’t have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
The way was cleared Monday when Gov. Mike Parson declined to grant clemency, citing Hosier’s “lack of remorse.” Parson, a Republican and former county sheriff, has overseen 10 executions since taking office in 2018. Hosier’s lawyers said no court appeals were pending in the hours before the scheduled execution....
In previous interviews with The Associated Press, Hosier acknowledged having an affair with Angela Gilpin that she ended before getting back with her husband. In September 2009, the two were fatally shot near the doorway to their apartment....
Hosier was the seventh person executed in the U.S. this year and the second in Missouri. Brian Dorsey was executed in April for killing his cousin and her husband in 2006. Missouri is scheduled to execute another man, Marcellus Williams, on Sept. 24, even though Williams is still awaiting a hearing on his claim of innocence in the 1998 stabbing death of Lisha Gayle.
June 11, 2024 at 09:03 PM | Permalink
Comments
"proclaimed his innocence"--well, yeah, what a chickenshit way to go--own up, apologize and exit life with a shred of dignity . . . .
Posted by: federalist | Jun 12, 2024 8:27:59 AM
Latest on Marcellus Williams is that, after Missouri Supreme Court set an execution date, the AG belatedly filed its response to his innocence petition and trial judge, on his own motion, set a case management conference (but not until July). No indication yet of any effort on behalf of Williams to get a hearing before his execution date.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 12, 2024 11:45:24 AM
tmm --
Didn't the former Governor appoint a board of five retired judges to review the innocence claim, and after several years it failed to do so? And if I'm recalling correctly this murder was done in 1998, 26 years ago.
If we are going to have a DP, as Missouri does, defendants should have every fair chance to show innocence. I think most normal people would agree with that. But 26 years is enough by any rational measure.
Posted by: bill otis | Jun 12, 2024 5:28:19 PM
Prior governor (Eric Greitens) appointed a board of inquiry in 2017. When the board had not wrapped up work by mid-2023, current governor (Michael Parsons) dissolved the board and lifted the stay. After the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision dissolving the board, they issued the execution warrant.
In the interim, Missouri adopted a statute allowing the local prosecutor to initiate a review of a defendant's actual innocence claim by the trial court if the local prosecutor deems the claim sufficiently substantive. That is what is currently pending. But the Missouri Supreme Court appears to take the position that since such a review is not part of the regular review process, it is up to the prosecutor and defendant to get the review completed before the execution date.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 12, 2024 5:38:09 PM
I know that the one review case in which I participated took about three months from filing to decision by the judge. Thus, it is doable before the execution date.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 12, 2024 5:39:38 PM
tmm --
I'm sure you're correct that it's doable. What gives me heartburn about this case is that, for this reason and the next reason, it goes on and on. By any sensible measure, this guy has had ample chance, now for over a quarter of a century, to make his case. I'm not in favor of a rush to judgment, but this is ridiculous.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 12, 2024 6:11:01 PM
Bill, the statute that allows a prosecutor to seek review is not quite three years old. As best as I could tell from searching the news and our court records website, it has been raised used in four non-capital cases (in which that is the only means to raise a "free-standing" actual innocence claim in state court) and two capital cases (in which habeas is available for a "free-standing" actual innocence claims).
In the other capital case, the review petition was filed after the execution date was set, and the Missouri Supreme Court refused to grant a stay given the lateness of the filing.
In the four non-capital case, one was dismissed without prejudice for a technical flaw which has since been resolved. I have not seen anything showing that it has been refiled.
Of the three that went to hearing, all three went to hearing within four months of filing. The first two have been granted. The hearing in the third was three weeks ago and post-hearing briefing wrapped up earlier this week. The trial judges have been relatively prompt about issuing decisions so the ruling in the third case could come any day.
Given that the trial courts have been willing to grant a pretty fast hearing (which is mostly on the records along with the new evidence) and rule pretty quickly after a hearing, you would think that a normal defendant would want a fast hearing.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 13, 2024 10:58:09 AM
tmm correctly observes "you would think that a normal defendant would want a fast hearing." Donald Trump has not wanted fasted hearings on anything. Can we infer that he is not "normal?"
Posted by: anon | Jun 14, 2024 9:45:27 PM
anon :
When a prosecution is contrived based solely on lies and acts that aren't even criminal, it takes a lot of time and legal legwork to dismantle all the BS. That is why President Trump takes his time.
But to answer your question, no, President Trump is not normal. Hes a cut above all of us, anointed by and second only to God.
Meanwhile I cant figure out if this Missouri murderer comes from Indiana or Canada. Or maybe he's the spawn of some sick sexual congress between a person from each and thats how he ended up so twisted. MAGA
Posted by: MAGA 2024 | Jun 15, 2024 11:16:19 AM
Anon, the "want a fast hearing" rule goes to somebody who is in custody. If you are not in custody, having a hearing sometime in ten years or so is perfectly fine.
That's a rule that applies to civil cases too. If I am the one who potentially owes the money, I have no problem with postponing the trial. If I am the one who is owed the money and need it to pay my bills, yesterday is when the trial should start.
That's why it's up to judge to make sure that the case is on track to proceed to trial. One side is willing to procrastinate to postpone the trial and will ask for multiple continuances. The other wants to move promptly with strict deadlines for pretrial motions and quick hearings when a motion is filed.
Posted by: tmm | Jun 16, 2024 10:40:07 AM