The Internet's First Serial Killer: John Edward Robinson, The 'Internet Slavemaster' John Edward Robinson was sentenced to death for his reign of terror in Kansas City in the mid-'80s. The district judge allowed this testimony as res gestae because it showed defendant's involvement with drugs in a case where the State's theory was that defendant murdered the victim in retaliation for testifying in another drug case. Robinson is now 72 years old, making it highly probable that Kansas will face the prospect of executing an octogenarian. Delo testified that Robinson also took advantage of several educational and training opportunities. K.S.A. And in analyzing this second prong for vagueness, we are further mindful that [t]he standards of certainty in [a statute] punishing criminal offenses are higher than in those depending primarily upon civil sanctions for enforcement. Steffes, 284 Kan. at 389. City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway CoOp, Inc., 298 Kan. 540, 54546, 316 P.3d 707 (2013). L.1979, ch. If error is found, we next conduct a reversibility inquiry, where. Consistent with Judge Anderson's direction, defense counsel did not raise the subject during general voir dire of the second panel. In January 1994, Robinson leased a second unit at StorMor, unit E2, under Bonner's name and maintained possession through his arrest in June 2000. Moreover, it is unclear how the characterization of the DPDU's exit as a discharge instead of a withdrawal could or would have placed any additional burden on Robinson's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. The Court stated that a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment where the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 991 (quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 424). This circumstantial evidence lent further support to the State's theory that Robinson had killed Lewicka as she slept or lay in her bed at the Olathe apartment. Although Gleason's argument as to this issue is murky, he seems to suggest that there is no evidence the murders are related because there is no evidence he and Thompson talked about killing Wornkey or that Thompson knew Gleason intended to kill Wornkey, and no evidence he and Thompson talked about killing Martinez on the way to Great Bend or that Gleason knew Thompson intended to shoot Martinez. Robinson also suggests that the prosecutor's final remark[I]f not him, then who?appealed to the jurors' sense of duty to maintain the death penalty as a viable sentencing option under state law, contrary to our holding in Scott, 286 Kan. at 79 (Prosecutorial comments that tell jurors to honor their oath and return a verdict of guilty impliedly suggest that to do otherwise would be a violation of such duty and are improper.). Robinson believes Judge Anderson erred in denying the challenge of Juror 316, who expressed the view that the justice system is corrupted by defense lawyers who represent clients they know to be guilty. According to a Radford.edu timeline on his life, he was named an Eagle Scout and attended a seminary. Based on the foregoing, Judge Anderson's ruling is fairly supported by the record. Other circumstantial evidence corroborated Remington's testimony and the authenticity of these e-mails. K.S.A. Jackson does not alter our conclusion. There, defendant was convicted under the continuous sexual abuse of a minor statute, which prohibited any person residing with or having access to a child under the age of 14 to molest that child at least three times during a period of not less than 3 months. That starting point is critical because it is a legislative function to define crimes. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) ] ). Robinson also highlight's Juror 184's statement that he expected the defense to put on mitigation evidence. However, if one or more jurors is not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, then you should sign the appropriate alternative verdict form indicating the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict sentencing the defendant to death. Judge Anderson did not deny any of defendant's motions based on a finding that the DPDU exited the case as a result of discharge, as opposed to withdrawal. In supplemental briefing, Robinson challenged Instruction No. Juror 184 maintained no contact with the department after resigning from his volunteer position. Defense counsel attempted to cut off Juror 14 at this point, but the following exchange continued: VENIREPERSON 14: But, I'd be willing to look at, you know, other. As a volunteer, he ran copies, distributed mail, and performed other small tasks. Twice, she testified, she came close to leaving her husband. And in that phase, evidence is heard called evidence of aggravating circumstances and evidence of mitigating circumstances. On September 5, defense counsel informed Judge Anderson that samples had been sent to a lab for independent analysis, but the results of that testing were never introduced at trial or included in the record on appeal. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010); Van Hoet, 277 Kan. 815, Syl. As to the second component, [i]f the double jeopardy issue arises from convictions for multiple violations of a single statute the unit of prosecution test is applied. 281 Kan. at 497. The expert said his mother physically abused him, and blamed him for the death of his brother. But this argument ignores our standard of review, which requires us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. During that call, Robinson identified himself as Jim. Later that afternoon, law enforcement intercepted another telephone call from Robinson, posing as Jim Turner, to Remington. 20301a. Both speculated, based on their initial reviews, that Robinson may have suffered abuse as a child and impairment to his mental functioning. Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1103. 278 Kan. at 92. See State v. Van Hoet, 277 Kan. 815, Syl. Neither the legislature nor the PIK Committee recommended a definition for common scheme or course of conduct in K.S.A. For example, in Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 72223, 81 S.Ct. Although it was unusual to approach a civil judge for an inquisition, Morrison felt there was a strong possibility he would later request pen registers and wiretaps, so he wanted to begin proceedings with the wiretap judge. Defense counsel seemed to realize the oversight, withdrawing his line of questioning and abandoning the argument. See K.S.A. Similarly, Juror 177 disclosed in questionnaire responses his belief that people who prey on weaker victims should be punished severely. Robinson never took the stand during his trial. Neither party, in fact, called Ray or introduced his documents at trial. Defense counsel explained that earlier that morning, he entered Judge Anderson's chambers and noticed a copy of that morning's Olathe Daily News sitting in the reception area. Betty Stasi told her not to sign anything. 214627(b), recodified as K.S.A.2014 Supp. Robinson believes these comments evidence Judge Anderson's retaliatory motive. Juror 149 also confirmed that, having been informed of the process, he would set aside his opinions and serve impartially. He now complains that Instruction No. 3. As such, we turn to other persuasive authority for guidance. State v. DeMille, 756 P.2d 81, 84 (Utah 1988) (juror's communication to other jurors that defendant's guilt was revealed to her through prayer did not constitute extraneous influence undermining jury's verdict). (b) Aggravated interference with parental custody is a class E felony. In summer 1999, Trouten told her mother that Robinson had offered her a job caring for his elderly father, Papa John. Trouten said Robinson and his father were selling off several companies and Papa John needed nursing care as they traveled to various locations to close the deals. The same holds true for the fleeting references to Robinson's companies using the Equi title. Even so, she said, she still loved her husband and continues to visit him regularly at the John County Jail. Robinson also highlights the prosecutor's comments to the thirteenth small group panel on September 23, 2002, when he asked prospective jurors 85 and 87 if they could set aside the information they learned and any opinions formed as a result of exposure to pretrial publicity and decide the case based on the evidence presented at trial. Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225, 1276 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (trial court's reference to jury's capital sentencing verdict as a recommendation did not violate Caldwell ), aff'd sub nom. ]); Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640, 646, 555 S.E.2d 440 (2001) ( improper to require the juror to enumerate hypothetical circumstances in which she might or might not vote to impose the death penalty ); State v. Ball, 824 So.2d 1089, 1110 (La.2002) ([V]oir dire does not encompass unlimited inquiry by defendant into all possible prejudices of prospective jurors, including their opinions on evidence, or its weight, hypothetical questions, or questions of law that call for any prejudgment of supposed facts in the case.); State v. Stanko, 376 S.C. 571, 57677, 658 S.E.2d 94 (2008) (limiting case-specific voir dire not an abuse of discretion where questionnaire explored potential impartiality and trial court used abstract questions to life qualify jurors); State v. Moeller, 616 N.W.2d 424, 442 (S.D.2000) (It was proper for State to use the hypothetical concept of a mental defect or a 15yearold person to explain the concept of a mitigating factor. If it becomes apparent during voir dire that an impartial jury cannot be found, the Court will not be reluctant to order a change of venue., 2. [G]athering sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute John E. Robinson and others yet unknown for the murder and kidnapping of Suzette Trouten. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), the United States Supreme Court reviewed K .S.A. She then disappeared, and Robinson stole her alimony payments. He talks in that movie about tender mercies in life, how life is full of tender mercies, these tender mercies are things like being able to hear the rain on the ceiling, getting out of bed in the morning, filling your lungs with air and standing up and stretching or maybe laying in bed for a few extra minutes. denied 534 U.S. 1066 (2001). Did the trial court's findings ignore social science research? We agree with Judge Anderson that the comment exceeded the scope of the evidence. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 105455, 111 S.Ct. The cited authority is distinguishable. Given the number of e-mails in question, the various senders and recipients involved, and the different forms in which they were admitted, we divide them into the following four categories for purposes of our analysis: (1) e-mails sent to or from Lore Remington; (2) e-mails sent to or from Tammi Taylor; (3) e-mail to Marshalla Chidester; and (4) e-mails seized pursuant to search warrant. 45. Even if the comments had been improper, the district judge's curative instruction and the prosecutor's clarification of the jurors' role prevented interference with defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges and ruled out prejudice to his fair trial rights. Thus, the weight of this factor in the overall analysis is diminished. 216619(c)(1). The instruction was legally appropriate and calculated to remove any taint created by Juror 147's conduct. K.S.A. Remington did just that, and Robinson, posing as Turner, said Taylor should contact Tom at preipo@usa.net.. Robinson signed a 1year rental agreement, from March 1, 1998, to February 28, 1999. "Because of the dog-catcher thing," she replied, alluding to an animal control officer who had come to the mobile home community that afternoon to pick up two stray Pekinese dogs that have been identified as belonging to Trouten. As to the second Skilling factor, Robinson argues the media reported prejudicial facts that were inadmissible at trial, such as Robinson's white-collar criminal history; his connection to other missing persons; his involvement with other women; and his prosecution for fraud and murder in Missouri. ] State v. Cheever, 295 Kan. 229, 269, 284 P.3d 1007 (2012) (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113, 102 S.Ct. A vagueness challenge based on the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is subject to a substantially similar analysis. However, unlike the situation here, in those cases law enforcement from the foreign jurisdiction never received a request for assistance from the host jurisdiction. He wants you to extend all those things to him. 3. She was a prison librarian at the prison where Robinson was an inmate. In Caldwell, the prosecutor's comments were quite focused, unambiguous, and strong. 472 U.S. at 340. Also, the fact that Juror 39 was exposed to media coverage before the trial, not during it, is significant. His family, including his wife and two daughters, stayed at his side throughout the trial, according to CourtTV, which quoted a family statement as saying, The John Robinson we know has always been a loving and caring husband and father, the type of parent who never missed a sporting event, a school function or an opportunity to be there for his family.
