Archive for Saturday, January 22, 2011

Man suspected of murdering Great Bend teen challenges Kansas death penalty

January 22, 2011


— The man accused of killing a teenager whose charred body was found at the Great Bend asphalt plant has challenged the constitutionality of the Kansas death penalty.

Attorneys for Adam Joseph Longoria of Great Bend filed a motion last week asking Barton County Judge Hannelore Kitts to declare the death penalty unconstitutional.

Longoria faces capital murder and criminal sodomy charges in the August killing of 14-year-old Alicia DeBolt.

Prosecutors said last year they would seek the death penalty.

Longoria's attorneys argue that so-called relaxed evidentiary standards allow the government to produce any evidence of aggravating factors without regard to its accuracy.

The defense notes the death penalty has been upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court and acknowledges it is filing the request to preserve the issue for future appeals.


bigdave 6 years, 1 month ago

The last executions in Kansas took place on June 22, 1965 so who gives a s%#&!!!

lionheart72661 6 years, 1 month ago

Let the other inmates have him...And they will!

Randall Uhrich 6 years, 1 month ago

The headline should read "charged with" instead of "suspected of" murdering Great Bend teen. I think the authorities have a pretty good idea of his involvement. They went beyond suspicions when they made the arrest.

sr80 6 years, 1 month ago

30k a year for life or a 2 dollar bullet ? you decide.

puddleglum 6 years, 1 month ago

or cheaper still, you could chain him up to a T-bus and drag him around town til parts start falling off.

trymeone35 6 years, 1 month ago

I have to agree with rduhrich and sr80... its time we stop wasting money, on jailing them just kill them.. But only if there is no shadow of a dough they did it.... use DNA test first and all other things first .. then if they did it , well they should just be wiped out.... wow sure miss the good old days ..............

deec 6 years, 1 month ago

"no shadow of a dough"? Sorry, couldn't resist.

puddleglum 6 years, 1 month ago

yep, no donuts found here....let him hang

Jimo 6 years, 1 month ago

"relaxed evidentiary standards allow the government to produce any evidence of aggravating factors without regard to its accuracy"

This is a problem that crosses traditional left/right lines. None other than right-wing icon Scalia has emphasized that when evaluating evidential testimony there is nothing that can replace the evaluation method prescribed by the Sixth Amendment: confrontation.

Current sentencing rules allow a variety of evidence to be introduced at sentencing that would never be acceptable for trial including evidence where the defendant is not allowed to confront accusers.

While I'm certain opposers of the death penalty cringe at this egregious rule, many who support the death penalty and realize it can only be sustained if the public has trust in its outcomes will also find that such relaxed standards are unacceptable in our constitutional tradition.

Zachary Stoltenberg 6 years, 1 month ago

Regardless of whether or not you support the death penalty, it is the current law. This sorry excuse for a human being knew that when he decided to perform the unspeakable actions he did. He deserves the full punishment for those actions, which is death. That would be like someone getting pulled over for speeding when they knew the posted speed limit and instead of disputing how fast they were going, instead argue that there is something wrong with the posted limit. He knew the law, he knew the consequences, the time to debate the penalty is gone now. Put him to sleep, forever.

Zachary Stoltenberg 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm not debating the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the death penalty, therefore your argument is invalid. I'm stating it is the current law and as such should be followed. Compare it to abortion, whether you believe it's "right" or "wrong" it is the law, and is therefore allowed. Can't have it both ways.

Zachary Stoltenberg 6 years, 1 month ago

So, now it's up to each individuals opinion of what is just? I don't need to honor laws that I don't think are just? Or right? I want to punch you in the face... 'cuz I don't think that would be wrong. It would be just. ;) That's called anarchy, and it doesn't work. We have laws, we follow them, or we face the consequences. Go find another scumbag to defend, it ain't gonna fly here.

Fatty_McButterpants 6 years, 1 month ago

Actually, it's more like arguing the fine that's imposed for the speeding. His attorney's are not arguing whether the crime of capital-murder is unconstitutional.

compmd 6 years ago

yo dawg, i herd u like sentencing people before theyve been convicted.

amesn 6 years, 1 month ago

@zstoltenberg Exactly! Great analogy! Has he entered a plea yet or is all of this in early stages? Could also just be a tactic to delay and drag things out longer

Shelley Bock 6 years, 1 month ago

The answer lies in the story. Filed to preserve the right to argue unconsitutionality of the death penalty later. Appropriate and reasonable lawyering.

compmd 6 years, 1 month ago

ok csi clowns, how about one of you give an explanation of what dna has to do with anything. you keep saying it over and over like some magical incantation that either condemns or excuplates someone of a crime, without fail. jesus people listen to yourselves. weve gone from being "award winning" to a forum of trolls, idiots, and internet tough guys. if youre going to post something, think first and remember that the internet never forgets.

ok with that out of the way, this move by the lawyers is one heck of a gambit. I hope their client is fully aware of what this means for him.

compmd 6 years ago

typing on a tiny cell phone is a pain, try it sometime.

thank you for your reply, it briliantly illustrates what i was talking about.

compmd 6 years ago

im in the process of moving, no internet at home yet. lazy and ignorant are two traits nobody can accuse me of.

i dont think i was being clear enough. i was trying to say that dna alone or dna matching dont mean anything necessarily with regard to criminal action. it only places someone somewhere. you cant even tell when. it can also establish relationships between people. it is but one component a prosecutor can use to make a case. if a man is found dead with another's dna under his fingernails, it does not follow that who he scratched killed him. prosecutors dont want jurors understanding logic and facts, they want jurors to believe them. if that means giving unrealistic expectations of science, then they will chant "dna, dna" in hopes jurors will make a fallacious jump.

im not against the science, youre spot on with all of it. its the false and imagined meanings people assign to it that i have a problem with.

Al Deathe 6 years, 1 month ago

Well said!!! Crime Shows have really screwed things up the criminal justice system. You would hope that the average human would realize the difference between drama and fact, truth or fiction. If you going to refer to DNA in your conversation at least read and educate yourself beyond watching a crime drama that was written to entertain.

sr80 6 years, 1 month ago

what are you talking about i thought truth & fiction were the same.a a a duhhhhhh.

Cait McKnelly 6 years ago

Kansas has a death penalty but no one has been put to death in this state in thirty five years. (The last execution in Kansas was in 1976.) There are currently seven people on death row in this state. In practical terms, the death penalty is life in prison without parole. I want to see the death penalty done away with. Not for reasons of morality. These people are rabid animals and should be put down. But for reasons of practicality. Estimates of costs are that a death penalty case costs at least 70% more (and may cost as much as 93% more) than a non death penalty case (and this includes those given life without chance of parole). If we aren't going to execute these people anyway, why is the state spending this kind of money? What's the point? In case no one has noticed we're broke; so broke that we're cutting funding to the people that actually need it like small children, the disabled and the elderly. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours on appeals and court costs for these vermin is taking food out of the mouths of babes. At least that's the way I see it. Just get rid of the death penalty. It's one of those famous areas of "fat and waste" that can be cut from the government budget.

TopJayhawk 6 years ago

why bother. They are never going to give him the needle anyway.. It is all just a huge waste of money..... That is one way they can save on the budget. Do away with the death penalty.

Pyroman110 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.