The death penalty trial of Brian Nichols, accused of the notorious 2005 Atlanta courthouse killings, will begin Thursday. It will be nationally televised on Court TV.
We all remember the horrifying news. Nichols, a rape defendant in custody, was being brought to the courthouse for a hearing. While in court, he allegedly stole a gun from a sheriff’s deputy and shot and killed a judge and court reporter.
He fled the courthouse and in the aftermath of his escape, allegedly shot and killed a sheriff’s deputy and a Customs agent. All of America watched the 26-hour manhunt, thanks to the cable news networks that provided wall-to-wall coverage.
The tragic story took a remarkable turn when Nichols turned himself into authorities the next day, after spending the night at the home of a woman he took hostage, Ashley Smith, a born-again Christian who treated him with understanding and compassion. She even cooked him pancakes in the morning, just prior to his surrender. Smith became an overnight national heroine and later wrote a book about her ordeal.
Venue has not been changed for the trial. It will take place in the same courthouse where the killings occurred. The trial is expected to last six months, with jury selection alone consuming three months. At least 3,500 juror summons have been issued.
It will be the most expensive trial in Georgia’s history, with $500,000 spent on the defense to date. I’m not aware of the cost of prosecution, but generally, it runs much higher. Ultimately, the Georgia taxpayers will bear the cost for both.
Many will wonder what the point is of a six-month trial when it’s obvious the defendant ontrial is the one responsible for the killings.
For the defense, the point is to save Brian Nichols’ life and try and convince at least one juror that life in prison, rather than death, is the appropriate penalty.
For the rest of us, the point is to ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system. Many people think that criminal trials are only a search for the truth. But, as U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch pointed out to the families of the Oklahoma City Bombing victims at a pre-trial hearing in the case of Timothy McVeigh, a trial is simply a test of the evidence and whether the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That means only evidence lawfully obtained can be admitted. It means that the defense must be afforded a chance to challenge the state’s evidence, including eyewitness identifications, the voluntariness of confessions and whether the state has turned over all potentially exculpatory material.
Death is different. The defense must be allowed to probe the beliefs of prospective jurors on the death penalty. Since only those who state they could impose the death penalty will be allowed to serve, the defense must be given a chance to weed out those who would refuse to impose a life sentence, based solely on the heinousness of the crime.
DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Hilton Fuller, who is presiding over the case, has acknowledged the most difficult task will be seating an impartial jury.
“The reality of a fair trial in this case may be more difficult than in others,” he says. “We need to demonstrate that we can conduct fair trials under whatever circumstances arise.”
One has to ask, is this death penalty trial necessary? Is it in society’s best interest? What besides vengeance would be lost by a guilty plea and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole?
Of the 3,500 summonses issued in the Nichols case, 2,200 have gone unanswered, indicating that many citizens don’t want to serve on the case.
Perhaps as The New York Times and the Boston Globe recently opined, the time is right for America to rethink the death penalty. I hope the spectacle and the expense of the Nichols’ trial results in many Americans asking themselves the same question.
Jeralyn Merritt is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at Talkleft.com.
