[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., KAN., ARIZ., CALIF.

[Rick Halperin]

Jan. 24




TEXAS:

Death penalty for juveniles?----Charles: A 17-year-old murderer deserves 
death


This week, Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster debate whether juveniles should be 
subject to the death penalty. Moster is a former litigation attorney in the 
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations who currently 
has offices in Lubbock and Amarillo. Arnold is the George Killiam Professor of 
Law at Texas Tech University School of Law.

The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Within the context 
of the death penalty, the Supreme Court has held it is cruel and unusual 
punishment to sentence juvenile offenders with the death penalty. However, 
there is no constitutional basis for this position. Instead, the Court has 
decided in Roper v. Simmons that the definition of prohibiting cruel and 
unusual punishment is now based upon "evolving standards of decency that mark 
the progress of a maturing society." The problem with this standard for 
determining whether juveniles should be sentenced to death is that philosophy 
sounds beautiful but does not protect society from vile criminal acts.

The case in Roper involved a 17-year-old high school student named Christopher 
Simmons who had discussed robbing and murdering someone for many months with 
his friends. Simmons finally broke into a woman's house, tied her up, beat her 
and drove her to a bridge, where he pushed her off the edge, and she drowned. 
Simmons later bragged about the murder to many different people, and was 
eventually arrested and sentenced to death.

Now, according to the Supreme Court, it would be cruel and unusual punishment 
to sentence a man like Simmons to death for the murder of his victim. However, 
I do not believe such a sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment. The 
nature of the crime is such that society needs to be protected from heinous 
acts. Criminals should not receive clemency simply because they are a few years 
away from the age of 18. It is difficult to imagine that a man like Simmons 
should get away with his heinous and premeditated deed because the government 
has decided that 17 year olds are, in the eyes of the law, "children." Simmons 
was nine months away from turning 18. Do those nine months warrant treating him 
like a child and granting him juvenile status for purposes of sentencing? I 
don't think this rationale would be comforting to his victim's family.

Because the wording of the Eighth Amendment is so broad, it is not 
unconstitutional to sentence juveniles with the death penalty so long as the 
crime merits the punishment. Certainly for lesser offenses rehabilitation or 
incarceration is warranted. But in situations where young criminals are guilty 
of murder, the death penalty should be an option. The risk that the killers 
will kill again outweighs the possibility of rehabilitation or incarceration 
for these most heinous crimes. As such, I believe the legislature should be 
free to determine that the death penalty is a viable option for juveniles who 
have demonstrated a disregard for human life.

If we were to continue on with the philosophy that "evolving standards of 
decency" allow murdering teenagers to receive leniency for their crimes, 
society would not be better off, and it would not mark progress.

Arnold: A 17-year-old's brain hasn't fully developed

The question before us today is whether a young adult should be put to death 
for a crime that he committed as a child. Happily the Supreme Court has said 
"no." Why do I say happily? Don't we need protection from vicious cold-blooded 
murderers of any age? The answer is of course we do, but secure incarceration 
will do just fine on that score. And, for what it's worth, states that do not 
have capital punishment have a lower murder rate than states (like Texas) that 
have capital punishment.

What Mr. Moster lampoons as "evolving standards of decency" includes evolving 
standards of scientific knowledge. We did not always know how brain function 
develops, but now we do. Today we know the ability to control one's conduct and 
be deterred by punishment develops significantly later than cognitive 
functioning. Science has told us that a 25 year-old is not likely to react to 
peer pressure and impulses in the same manner as an 18-year-old. Consequently, 
we should not write the law as if he would.

To be sure there are occasional bad seeds who will continue to do horrible 
things as they age. But there are 2 problems with relying on this. First, they 
are a distinct minority, and second, it is impossible to tell whom they might 
be. At the time of trial, nobody knew whether the boy, Simmons (and he was a 
boy, not a man), would develop into a psychopathic killer, a pillar of his 
community, or something in between. We do know that the fact that he did 
something very bad as a boy doesn't give us the answer.

Mr. Moster suggests that "Criminals should not receive clemency (assuming that 
30 years in prison constitutes clemency) simply because they are a few years 
away from the age of 18." Well at what age (if any) should we not kill 
children? 15? 12? 9? In regard to the last example, the casebook that I edited 
for criminal law classes includes the case of Cameron Kocher, a 9-year-old boy 
who, on a snow day with no school, procured a key to his father's locked gun 
cabinet, retrieved a hunting rifle, removed a window screen, and shot and 
killed a classmate riding on a snowmobile. Undoubtedly, he should have been 
dealt with severely. But should he have been killed? I assume that Mr. Moster 
would say "no," but I'll let him speak for himself.

To the extent that there is arbitrariness in the 18-year cutoff, it is that 18- 
and 19-year-olds, whose brains are not fully developed, are subject to capital 
punishment. But, as with voting and ability to serve in the military, there has 
to be a cutoff somewhere and 18 seems to be the favored line (though it is 
worth noting that 21 is the line for alcohol because of the belief that those 
under 21 lack the judgment to manage their consumption thereof). Maybe the age 
limit for capital punishment should also be raised to 21 to mirror the judgment 
about alcohol.

Mr. Moster's proposal to overrule Roper would not only be bad law, but would 
actually be perverse. This is because the cognitive portion of the brain 
develops more quickly than impulse control portion of the brain. Thus, a 
17-year-old may well have something intelligent to say about whether Donald 
Trump or Ted Cruz should be our next president, but the law denies him the 
opportunity to vote. Yet, if Mr. Moster's proposal succeeded, the boy's 
17-year-old twin brother and perhaps even his 14-year-old younger sister who 
killed a grocery clerk because she refused to sell them beer, could in turn be 
killed by the state.

If you like that dichotomy, perhaps you should support Mr. Moster's proposal. 
But I don't and I won't.

Charles: Juries should decide case by case

Allowing the death penalty for minors as an option is not the same as mandating 
it in all circumstances. The jury would make a determination on a case by case 
basis, and they should be free to do so. Juries need the versatility to 
consider such a sentence should the circumstances require. The focus should not 
be on impulse control, but rather whether an individual has the intellectual 
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Human beings are held to standards of morality and decency at a much younger 
age - 16- and 17-year-olds understand the difference between right and wrong. 
They can understand that murder is wrong and punishable. Professor Loewy admits 
that although a teenager might not be emotionally fully matured, they certainly 
do have the intellectual capacity to understand that murder is wrong. Only 
those who have committed the worst crimes should be considered for the death 
penalty.

If a 17-year-old intentionally commits a murder, and has the intellectual 
capacity to understand that what he did was wrong, he should be held 
accountable to the fullest extent, even if it means facing the death penalty, 
despite not being a fully emotionally developed adult. Certainly, an emotional 
crime of passion such as the one Professor Loewy cites in his example should 
not be classed the same as the premeditated actions of a serial killer. But 
emotional development is simply not an issue when dealing with a minor who has 
planned and killed several others, for example Mary Bell or Jesse Pomeroy, both 
responsible for multiple slayings of other children.

For most of our history, whether a particular punishment violated the Eighth 
Amendment depended on whether it constituted an act or punishment which would 
be considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. At 
that time, the age of capacity to commit felonies was set at 14 years old. 
However, as has been discussed, the Courts now look at the "evolving standards 
of decency."

As such, 14 is now seen as minor, but at the time the bill was adopted a 
14-year-old was a capable of adult choices as an 18 year old, and considering 
that a 14-year-old could serve in the armed forces of the time, it would make 
sense they would be considered adults as well.

Despite the Professor's assertion that someone who brags about killing in cold 
blood, or plans and carries out multiple ritualistic killings, could somehow 
develop into a pillar of the community, the death penalty for so called "bad 
seeds" must be an option for the safety of society.

Arnold: Young murderers might grow up to be good

Mr. Moster tells us he does favor a line below which no child can be executed, 
but his line is 14, the common law line for criminality. But this is no less 
arbitrary than the Roper v. Simmons line. Under Mr. Moster's rule, if 2 
lifelong friends (1 a month under 14 and 1 a month over 14) set out to rob a 
store and kill the clerk, the 2-month-older child would be eligible for the 
death penalty whereas the younger child would not, even if the younger child 
were the primary planner.

Mr. Moster relies on the fact that 14-year-olds were considered adults when the 
Constitution was framed. There are 2 problems with this. First, at that time, 
according to Mr. Moster, 14-year-olds could serve in the armed services and 
thus were treated as adults. Today, in nearly every respect a 14-year-old is 
treated as a child. Second, we now know scientifically that 17-year-olds do not 
have the capacity to appreciate consequences that is enjoyed by adults. We did 
not know that in 1791.

The crimes that I discussed previously were calculated, not emotional crimes. 
Cameron Kocher, 9, was not angry at anybody; he just decided to use his 
classmate as target practice and then made an effort to cover up his role in 
the crime. The teenagers in my last hypothetical were guilty of classic felony 
murder for stealing beer at gunpoint from the clerk.

I would underscore that for purposes of this debate, I am not arguing that 
Simmons, Kocher, or the hypothetical teenagers should be treated as juveniles 
and tried in juvenile court (although Kocher in fact was). What I am arguing is 
the penalty for these children should be limited to substantial confinement in 
the penitentiary.

Of course, juveniles have a basic understanding of morality and decency. That 
is why they should be severely punished for their transgressions. But they do 
not have the same understanding that adults have, and that is why their 
punishment should not be irrevocable. Unfortunately, juries have no way of 
knowing which child will be irrevocably bad as an adult, and which, as a mature 
adult, will see the light.

For what it is worth, while awaiting execution, according to his attorney: 
"Simmons became an active Christian, joined several prison ministry and youth 
programs, and helped as a hospice aide caring for inmates with AIDS." Thus, on 
the unanswerable trial question "Is Christopher Simmons a bad seed, or a good 
person who did one unbelievably horrible thing," the answer (however surprising 
to Mr. Moster) appears to the latter.

In a way this should not be surprising. How many of us would want to be judged 
by the worst thing we ever did as a teenager? Of course, people who do what 
Simmons did are not free to simply outgrow their immature judgment. But they 
should, as they are, immune from being killed because of it.

(source: lubbockonline.com)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Death sentence trial, now uncommon, scheduled to start in NC


A Fayetteville man is going on trial for his life next month, now an uncommon 
occurrence in North Carolina.

The Fayetteville Observer reports (http://bit.ly/1PL8BgI) the trial of 
48-year-old Shawn Legrand is scheduled to begin Feb. 1. Legrand is charged with 
killing 3 people and trying to kill 2 others in November 2011.

The N.C. Center for Death Penalty Litigation says North Carolina had 57 death 
penalty trials in 2000, with 18 resulting in death sentences. The state had 4 
capital trials in 2015 and no death sentences.

District Attorney Billy West says he's seeking the death penalty for several 
reasons, including the number of people killed.

Legrand has asked the court to let him represent himself. Defense lawyer 
Michael Driver said he and lawyer Lisa Miles are still representing Legrand.

(source: Associated Press)






KANSAS:

Rulings in Kansas cases revive conservatives' push on courts


Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and his allies are trying to revive their push to 
remake Kansas' courts by stoking public outrage after recent abortion and death 
penalty rulings.

Brownback has repeatedly advocated overhauling how Kansas Supreme Court 
justices are selected, potentially giving governors and legislators have more 
control. He and other prominent conservative Republicans renewed their calls 
for change over the past week.

The current system relies on a lawyer-led commission to screen Supreme Court 
applicants. The governor must appoint one of its three finalists. Lawmakers 
have no role.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff King said rulings voters dislike can 
get their attention and focus them on possible changes. The Independence 
Republican favors overhauling the selection system.

Kansas Bar Association Executive Director Jordan Yochim called the push 
politically motivated.

. (source: Associated Press)

*************************

Efforts to repeal Kansas death penalty may be stymied by U.S. Supreme Court's 
decision


Leading up to the start of the 2016 legislative session, Kansas death penalty 
opponents thought they had a good chance of passing a bill this year to repeal 
the law.

In fact, a bill was formally introduced Friday in the House, with 17 cosponsors 
from both sides of the aisle, including religious conservative Republicans as 
well as liberal and centrist Democrats.

It would prohibit death sentences for any crimes committed after July 1, and it 
would create a new crime of "aggravated murder" punishable by life in prison 
without the possibility of parole.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that put one of the 
most infamous mass murders in Kansas history back in the spotlight, some 
lawmakers say those chances may have dimmed.

"Up until (Wednesday), we had enough votes that we could have passed it in the 
House," said Rep. John Bradford, R-Lansing, one of the conservative cosponsors. 
"Right now, after that decision, I think it's going to be questionable."

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Kansas Supreme Court ruling and 
upheld the death sentences of 3 convicted murderers in Kansas, including 
Jonathan and Reginald Carr, the 2 brothers who killed 5 people and attempted to 
kill a 6th during a crime spree in Wichita in December 2000.

In the same opinion, the court also reversed the Kansas court in another death 
penalty case, that of Sidney Gleason, who was convicted of the 2004 murder of a 
Great Bend woman and her boyfriend, because the decision in that case was based 
on the court's ruling in the Carr brothers case.

Those were the 2nd and 3rd cases in which the U.S. high court reversed the 
Kansas court on death penalty cases. In 2013, the U.S. court also upheld the 
death sentence of Scott Cheever, who shot and killed Greenwood County Sheriff 
Matt Samuels in 2005.

Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994, and since then several people have 
been sentenced to death. But so far, no one has been executed because the 
Kansas Supreme Court has consistently overturned or vacated their sentences, 
usually on procedural grounds.

In 2014, in fact, the Kansas court vacated the Carr brothers' sentences, 
thrusting the court itself into the middle of election-year politics. 2 of the 
court's justices, Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson, were up for retention that year, 
and both of them won, but by much narrower margins than usual.

Now, with that infamous massacre back in the spotlight, some supporters of 
repeal say it will be hard to vote for it without appearing like they're 
letting the Carr brothers off the hook, even though the repeal bill, as it's 
currently drafted, would not apply retroactively to them.

"I'm sure some would perceive that," said Rep. John Barker, R-Abilene, who 
chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where the bill could be referred. "But I 
look at it from a different perspective. You have your personal convictions, 
whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, whether you're for the death penalty or 
against the death penalty. Normally (a court ruling) doesn't change your 
personal convictions. It may add pressure that they don't want to go forward 
this year, though."

Rep. Boog Highberger, D-Lawrence, another cosponsor of the bill, said he is 
also hopeful that the Carr brothers decision won't affect how lawmakers vote on 
the issue.

"The bill is not retroactive, so any existing death sentences could still be 
carried out," he said.

Highberger also said the movement to abolish the death penalty has been gaining 
momentum among conservatives.

"The conservative argument, as I understand it is, one, the death penalty is an 
inefficient government program," he said. "We've spent millions of dollars on 
it and we haven't executed anyone since 1965."

"Also," he said, "I think people are finally realizing it might be inconsistent 
with conservative beliefs about small government and limited government. If you 
only believe in limited government, do you want government having the power to 
kill people?"

But Sen. Jeff King, R-Independence, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and is a supporter of the death penalty, said he doesn't buy the argument that 
the law is ineffective because it hasn't been used yet.

"The 3 decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court that have prevented the death 
penalty have all been overturned by the United States Supreme Court," he said. 
"The misapplication of the federal Constitution by the Kansas Supreme Court 
cannot be used as a justification for repealing the law."

On Monday, House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, is expected to refer the 
death penalty bill to a committee.

Barker said it will be up to Merrick and the House GOP leadership team to 
decide whether the bill will get a hearing, and whether it will ever be voted 
on by the full House.

(source: Lawrence Journal World)

******************

3 court rulings not final word on issues


Last week brought rulings of keen interest in Wichita and Kansas from the 
highest courts in the nation and the state on some of the most crucial issues 
of the day, from abortion to the death penalty to the drug war.

First came the U.S. Supreme Court's 8-1 decision Wednesday overturning the 
Kansas Supreme Court's 2014 ruling vacating the death sentences of Wichita 
spree killers Jonathan and Reginald Carr and Great Bend double murderer Sidney 
Gleason. The ruling hands the cases back to the state Supreme Court and leaves 
more appeal phases to go. But it's a welcome relief that the families and 
survivors will not have to endure resentencing proceedings. Nor will our 
community - now linked to the Carrs' 2000 crimes in what is popularly known 
elsewhere as "the Wichita massacre" - have to see a re-examination of the "acts 
of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity" that Justice Antonin Scalia's 
decision described in excruciating detail.

Friday brought the state Supreme Court's decision striking down Wichitans' 
ballot initiative lessening penalties for marijuana possession and the Kansas 
Court of Appeals' split ruling further delaying implementation of a 
1st-in-the-nation ban on a common 2nd-trimester abortion method.

To their understandable frustration, the Wichita activists who tried to do 
everything right - twice - to get the marijuana reform question on last April's 
ballot saw the state Supreme Court throw out the vote over a petition filing 
technicality. Better city guidance might have spared them that stumble. The 
court's ruling didn't answer the question of whether Wichita could have lower 
penalties for marijuana possession than the state. But Wichita voters' 54 % 
approval of the ordinance stands as a strong public endorsement of efforts to 
reduce penalties for pot possession or otherwise pursue reforms, including the 
ongoing consideration in Topeka of a House-passed bill that also would 
authorize hemp treatments for seizure disorders and save the state $1.4 million 
a year and nearly 450 felony cases.

Meanwhile, the historic 7-7 abortion ruling puts half the Court of Appeals on 
record as agreeing with the Shawnee County District Court that the Kansas 
Constitution Bill of Rights provides a right to abortion. It also keeps on hold 
the 2015 ban on the dilation and evacuation procedure and assures state Supreme 
Court consideration of the case - and additional legal bills for taxpayers, 
unfortunately.

None of the 3 decisions was the last word - a frustration for those looking for 
certainty. Some will be political fodder, like it or not. But together the 
week's big rulings underscored how essential the appellate courts are to 
breaking impasses and ensuring accountability. They don't aim to please, just 
uphold the Constitution and rule of law.

(source: Wichita Eagle Editorial Board)






ARIZONA:

7 aggravating factors in death penalty case ---- Maricopa couple found dead in 
July; neighbor charged


A murder case that captivated the nation was brought back into the spotlight 
this week when Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles announced he would seek the 
death penalty against Jose Valenzuela.

Valenzuela, 36, is charged with 2 counts of 1st-degree murder in the deaths of 
Michael and Tina Careccia, a Maricopa-area couple who went missing last June. 
The Pinal County Sheriff's Office discovered the bodies of the Careccias buried 
in Valenzuela's backyard in the early morning hours of July 2.

Voyles, known for his aggressive stance on the death penalty, wouldn't share 
specifics on why he thinks this is a good case in which to pursue capital 
punishment.

Proving the premeditated nature of a murder, among other factors, is usually a 
key to securing a death penalty conviction.

"(Premeditation) is a fact that we'll have the opportunity to argue in court, 
and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge," he said at a press 
conference outside the Pinal County Superior Court on Wednesday. "The jury or 
the judge will decide whether or not we've met that burden."

Valenzuela confessed to the murders on July 1 when speaking to a Pinal County 
Sheriff's investigator on the phone. He lived close to the Careccias and was 
friends with the couple.

Sheriff Paul Babeu said there is no question the Careccias had a close 
relationship with their alleged killer.

He mentioned the 3 of them attending the same barbecue on Father's Day, just 
hours before the Careccias were murdered.

"The fact that they were close, their families associated, kids had 
relationships together ... There's (only) a few hundred yards separating the 
residences," he said. "And the fact that (the Careccias) went over, even after 
the barbecue, late at night in (Valenzuela's) home ... It's no doubt more 
disturbing for the surviving victims (the family). The sting is, I'm sure, that 
much more pronounced for them."

Voyles wouldn't speculate on a judicial outcome for Valenzuela, but Babeu 
confidently stated the evidence provided in court would lead to a conviction.

"I have no doubt the overwhelming evidence that we have, the premeditation of 
this murder and the subsequent burying of these 2 individuals on his property 
and the concealing of that crime, (means) he will face justice and he will go 
away for a very long time, as he should," the sheriff said.

The Pinal County Attorney's Office, in its notice of intent to seek the death 
penalty, listed three aggravating factors in the death of Mike and 4 
aggravating factors in Tina's death.

In Tina's case, the county attorney's office argues the crime was committed in 
"an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner."

1 factor that could complicate the case is drug use. Valenzuela told 
investigators he abused methamphetamine with the Careccias for 2 years leading 
up to the murders.

He also told investigators he was high on meth when he committed the murders.

An autopsy report conducted by the Pinal County Medical Examiner's Office 
showed both Mike and Tina had the drug in their system at the time of their 
death. The report also concluded both were homicide victims, each with gunshot 
wounds to their heads.

Local residents, neighbors, friends and family searched the area for days after 
the Careccias were first reported missing on June 22.

The story of a young, attractive couple that seemingly vanished into thin air 
overnight created a media sensation and made news broadcasts across the 
country.

"Our hearts go out to the surviving victims and the community, anybody who knew 
Mike and Tina," Babeu said. "They didn't deserve this, and we're going to stand 
for justice in this case."

Valenzuela has a court hearing at 2:30 p.m. Feb. 1 at Pinal County Superior 
Court in Florence.

(source: Casa Grande Dispatch)






CALIFORNIA:

California Death Penalty Debate: Will The State Change Its Lethal Injection 
Procedure?


California, the state with the most inmates on death row in the country, is 
debating whether to simplify its lethal-injection protocol, eliminating the 
3-drug cocktail previously employed to put prisoners to death and replacing it 
with just 1 drug. The 3-drug concoction was deemed unconstitutional about 10 
years ago because it was believed it might be too painful for the condemned 
convicts.

Since then, some have grown tired of waiting for California to find a new way 
to execute those sentenced to death.

"As of next month, the state will have been remiss in its duties for a decade," 
Michele Hanisee, vice president of the Los Angeles Association of Deputy 
District Attorneys, said at an informational hearing in Sacramento Friday, 
according to Reuters. "The family members of the victims are dying before the 
murderers."

However, the planned change in the protocol may not go forward. A ballot 
measure has been proposed that would do away with the death penalty in 
California, replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole, 
the Sacramento Bee reported.

The proposal indicates the state "spends millions of taxpayer dollars providing 
lawyers for death-row inmates, only to see the murderers it has sentenced to 
death by execution die of old age in prison." Advocates of the abolition of the 
death penalty hope to get the proposal on the ballot in November, when another 
measure designed to speed up executions also would be considered.

The informational hearing Friday centered on the possible use of the single 
drug, a barbiturate, at a time when the state is divided over the effectiveness 
of the death penalty. Linda Fox, a member of Death Penalty Focus, a nonprofit 
group dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment, said at the hearing 
that using a barbiturate to execute prisoners could not be proved less painful 
than the current method.

Clerics were also at the hearing to express their dissatisfaction with the 
concept of the death penalty. The Rev. George Horan, a Roman Catholic priest 
based in Los Angeles, said crime cannot be "overcome ... simply by executing 
criminals," the Sacramento Bee reported.

As of July 1, California had 746 death-row inmates, followed by Florida with 
400, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group 
providing analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment. 
Meanwhile, those on death row are more likely to die from either natural causes 
or suicide than from execution.

(source: International Business Times)

***************

Murder suspect tells his side in 1-on-1 interview


Late Thursday evening, double murder suspect Anthony Baxter shuffled into 
interview booth number five to share his side of a very graphic and horrific 
story making headlines for the past 2 weeks.

He sat quietly, without handcuffs, while he picked up the phone to say hello. 
At times, Baxter cried while he looked down. He seemed confused as he fumbled 
with his hands. He also seemed sorry for what he did, but defiant about why he 
did it.

Baxter said he wants the death penalty for killing an Anderson couple last 
week, a crime he confessed in detail to police.

"I don't want to have to go through prison for the rest of my life. I deserve 
what I did. I killed two people. I deserve the death penalty. I'd rather die 
than be alive," Baxter said.

When asked about the two people he said he killed, it took awhile to respond.

Tears started gathering in his eyes when he said, "I regret my action and yes, 
there was an alternative. I wish I made the choice not to do it."

Baxter said he went over the victim's apartment, belonging to Michael Helsby, 
to "beat" Helsby up, but he "turned into an animal" and "flipped out."

He said he never intended to kill Helsby or the other victim, Georgia 
Engelhaupt, but because she woke up in the middle of his attack on Helsby, "she 
was a witness."

Baxter faced the glass as he described his pent up anger against Helsby after 
he learned Helsby was going to evict his girlfriend and her s6-year-old 
daughter.

When questioned about his anger, Baxter admitted he had only met Helsby three 
times. He said he didn't actually know Helsby that well.

Baxter insisted the killings stemmed from a lack of respect. He said Helsby had 
been disrespecting his girlfriend so he had to do something.

"I am willing to give up life to fight for respect and that's what I did," 
Helsby shared as he looked down.

Tears hit the ledge of the interview booth when Baxter was asked about his 
girlfriend and her 6-year-old daughter.

In previous reports, she had told police Baxter threatened to kill her daughter 
in front of her, and then kill her if she ratted him out to police. Baxter 
admitted he threatened her, but said he would have never actually hurt her or 
her daughter.

Baxter kept mentioning the word "respect." At one point, he said he is a 
respectful man, but he apologized when he was questioned about the definition 
of respect.

Baxter cried and held his head down while he said over and over that he is 
sorry.

"There's nothing I can say or do to take back what I've done," Baxter said with 
disgust.

Baxter believes his rough upbringing has made it difficult for him to live a 
normal life.

When asked about his past, Baxter referenced a song called "Boulevard of Broken 
Dreams" by Green Day. He directly quoted the song and said, "I walk this lonely 
world. I'm the only one that walks alone."

Baxter will appear in court next on February 5 for further arraignment.

(source: KRCR news)