Great Bend — 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.
Comments
skinny 2 years, 3 months ago
At his own expense I hope!
none2 2 years, 3 months ago
If the guy did this crime, then yes he deserves the death penalty. I don't know how they came about piecing together the evidence, but I'm sure we will find out more as this trial proceeds.
Solomon 2 years, 3 months ago
Exercise the death penalty only when DNA evidence supports conviction. Otherwise, life without parole.
none2 2 years, 3 months ago
How do you find DNA evidence when the body was charred beyond recognition? I believe there are situations where the evidence is overwhelming even if the criminal did an excellent job of removing all DNA. To rely solely on DNA evidence is basically to give death penalty pardons to smarter murderers.
bigdave 2 years, 3 months ago
The last executions in Kansas took place on June 22, 1965 so who gives a s%#&!!!
none2 2 years, 3 months ago
Well for one her parents, and friends might.
lionheart72661 2 years, 3 months ago
Let the other inmates have him...And they will!
rduhrich 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months ago
30k a year for life or a 2 dollar bullet ? you decide.
MacHeath 2 years, 3 months ago
actually, a guy could plunk him in the head with a .22, and it would work just as well as a 2 dollar bullet...
puddleglum 2 years, 3 months ago
or cheaper still, you could chain him up to a T-bus and drag him around town til parts start falling off.
none2 2 years, 3 months ago
As much as I dislike the empTy, I don't wish to have one of those buses loose parts. Since tax payers in essence own them, we need to keep them in good shape in case we can sell them one day.
trymeone35 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months ago
"no shadow of a dough"? Sorry, couldn't resist.
puddleglum 2 years, 3 months ago
yep, no donuts found here....let him hang
Jimo 2 years, 3 months 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.
zstoltenberg 2 years, 3 months 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.
zstoltenberg 2 years, 3 months 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.
zstoltenberg 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months ago
yo dawg, i herd u like sentencing people before theyve been convicted.
amesn 2 years, 3 months 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
Hepburn 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months 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.
Starlight 2 years, 3 months ago
Funny that the only word you capitalized was "I". I guess your name is a truncation of compromised for which a synonym is "impaired". The Internet won't forget your lack of use of the shift key. DNA is pretty damning evidence when found on a victim and it has been used to exonerate a number of people found innocent of the crime for which they had been locked up for years.
compmd 2 years, 3 months 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.
Starlight 2 years, 3 months ago
Well, thank you for your explanation. I hadn't really considered so many were entering their comments on cell phones. I guess that's a keyboard you don't kick ass on. I was thinking the poor fundamentals was either laziness or ignorance. Hope you're not driving or walking towards a fountain while entering your comments;)
I do think you are ignorant of the impact of DNA on forensics. Blood typing was discovered about the time fingerprinting was first used around 1900. It could only differentiate two samples about 30% of the time. In the mid 1970s, new technology allowed for the analysis of serum proteins by electrophoresis resulting in an improvement in the discrimination power, which now approached 90%. In the mid 80s it was found that highly polymorphic areas on DNA could distinguish people to the point of uniqueness. Today DNA typing using short tandem repeats (STRs)and capillary electrophoresis allows forensic scientists to analyze blood and other body fluids quickly and definitively.
Though many are convicted on DNA evidence it should be noted the first use in forensic science excluded the suspect.
compmd 2 years, 3 months 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.
awdvkd 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months ago
what are you talking about i thought truth & fiction were the same.a a a duhhhhhh.
cait48 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months 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 2 years, 3 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.